go fair' Zeitarbeit OHG v Finanzamt Hamburg-Altona.
Date: 2015-03-12
17. It must be borne in mind at the outset that the terms used to specify the exemptions in Article 132 of Directive 2006/112 are to be interpreted strictly, as they are a departure from the general principle that VAT is to be paid on each supply of services made for consideration by a taxable person. Nevertheless, the interpretation of those terms must be consistent with the objectives underlying the exemptions and must comply with the requirements of the principle of fiscal neutrality inherent in the common system of VAT. Accordingly, the requirement of strict interpretation does not mean that the terms used to specify the exemptions referred to in Article 132 must be construed in such a way as to deprive the exemptions of their intended effects (see judgments in Horizon College , C‑434/05, EU:C:2007:343, paragraph 16; Commission  v Netherlands , C‑79/09, EU:C:2010:171, paragraph 49; Zimmermann , C‑174/11, EU:C:2012:716, paragraph 22; and Klinikum Dortmund , C‑366/12, EU:C:2014:143, paragraphs 26 and 27).
18. It follows from the wording of Article 132(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112 that the exemption provided for therein applies to goods and services which are closely linked to welfare and social security work and supplied by bodies governed by public law or by other organisations recognised as charitable by the Member State concerned (see judgments in Kingscrest Associates and Montecello , C‑498/03, EU:C:2005:322, paragraph 34, and Zimmermann , C-174/11, EU:C:2012:716, paragraph 21).
19. Regarding the latter condition in particular, which is the subject of the first question referred, it is in principle for the national law of each Member State to lay down the rules in accordance with which that recognition may be granted to organisations seeking it. Member States have a discretion in that respect (see judgment in Zimmermann , C-174/11, EU:C:2012:716, paragraph 26).
20. However, it follows from consistent case-law that it is for the national authorities, in accordance with EU law and subject to review by the national courts, to take into account a number of factors in order to determine which bodies must be recognised as ‘devoted to social wellbeing’ within the meaning of Article 132(1)(g) of Directive 2006/112. Such factors include the existence of specific provisions, be they national or regional, legislative or administrative, or tax or social security provisions, the general interest of the activities of the taxable person concerned, the fact that other taxable persons carrying on the same activities already have similar recognition, and the fact that the costs of the supplies in question may be largely met by health insurance schemes or other social security bodies (see, to that effect, judgments in Kügler , C‑141/00, EU:C:2002:473, paragraphs 57 and 58; Kingscrest Associates and Montecello , C‑498/03, EU:C:2005:322, paragraph 53; and also Zimmermann , C-174/11, EU:C:2012:716, paragraph 31).
27. As regards the term ‘body’ in that provision, the case-law is clear that that term is sufficiently broad to include private profit-making entities (see judgment in Kingscrest Associates and Montecello , C-498/03, EU:C:2005:322, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited). Accordingly, a general partnership such as ‘go fair’ may be considered a ‘body’ within the meaning of that provision.