Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.
Date: 1985-07-11
11 ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT IN SOME OF THE LANGUAGE VERSIONS THE EXPRESSION ' PUBLIC POSTAL SERVICES '  MAY BE UNDERSTOOD , WHEN CONSIDERED IN ISOLATION , AS REFERRING TO ALL POSTAL ACTIVITIES , THE SYNTAX OF THE WHOLE PHRASE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE WORDS IN FACT REFER TO THE ACTUAL ORGANIZATIONS WHICH ENGAGE IN THE SUPPLY OF THE SERVICES TO BE EXEMPTED . IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY THE WORDING OF THE PROVISION THE SERVICES MUST THEREFORE BE PERFORMED BY A BODY WHICH MAY BE DESCRIBED AS ' THE PUBLIC POSTAL SERVICE '  IN THE ORGANIC SENSE OF THAT EXPRESSION . THAT IS NOT SO , FOR EXAMPLE , IN THE CASE OF A TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING WHICH , WITHOUT COMING INTO CONTACT WITH THE PUBLIC , IS MERELY RESPONSIBLE FOR LONG-DISTANCE TRANSPORTATION BETWEEN TWO POST OFFICES .
13 NO SUCH FACTOR CAN BE FOUND BY COMPARING SUBPARAGRAPH ( A ) WITH THE WORDING OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 13 A ( 1 ). THE EXEMPTIONS PROVIDED FOR THEREIN ARE DEFINED IN WIDELY DIFFERING WAYS . ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT THE EXEMPTIONS ARE GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF ACTIVITIES PURSUING SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES , MOST OF THE PROVISIONS ALSO DEFINE THE BODIES WHICH ARE AUTHORIZED TO SUPPLY THE EXEMPTED SERVICES . IT IS THEREFORE INCORRECT TO STATE THAT THE SERVICES ARE DEFINED BY REFERENCE TO PURELY MATERIAL OR FUNCTIONAL CRITERIA .
14 AS REGARDS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ARTICLES 4 AND 13 OF THE DIRECTIVE , IT SHOULD BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE FORMER CONCERNS THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM ' TAXABLE PERSON ' , WHILST THE LATTER EXEMPTS THE SUPPLY OF CERTAIN SERVICES AND GOODS . THE FIRST SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 4 ( 5 ) PROVIDES THAT BODIES GOVERNED BY PUBLIC LAW ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED TAXABLE PERSONS IN RESPECT OF THE ACTIVITIES OR TRANSACTIONS IN WHICH THEY ENGAGE AS PUBLIC AUTHORITIES . THE FINAL SUBPARAGRAPH THEREOF PERMITS THE MEMBER STATES TO TREAT ACTIVITIES OF SUCH BODIES WHICH ARE EXEMPTED UNDER ARTICLE 13 AS FALLING WITHIN THAT CATEGORY .
15 IT FOLLOWS THAT , EVEN IF POSTAL ACTIVITIES ARE ASSIGNED TO BODIES GOVERNED BY PUBLIC LAW , ARTICLE 13 AND THE REFERENCE TO IT CONTAINED IN THE FINAL SUBPARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 4 ( 5 ) ARE NECESSARY TO EXEMPT THE WHOLE OF THOSE ACTIVITIES , OF WHICH ONLY A PART MAY BE REGARDED AS THE ACTIVITIES OF A PUBLIC AUTHORITY IN THE STRICT SENSE . IT IS THEREFORE INCORRECT TO STATE THAT THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 13 WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF ANY MEANING IF IT ONLY APPLIED TO THE ACTIVITIES OF A BODY GOVERNED BY PUBLIC LAW .
17 AS REGARDS THE PURPOSE OF THE EXEMPTIONS PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 13 , IT SHOULD BE OBSERVED THAT THAT PROVISION DOES NOT MENTION EVERY ACTIVITY PERFORMED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST BUT ONLY CERTAIN ACTIVITIES , WHICH ARE LISTED AND DESCRIBED IN GREAT DETAIL . IN THAT REGARD THE PREAMBLE TO THE DIRECTIVE MERELY STATES THAT ' A COMMON LIST OF EXEMPTIONS SHOULD BE DRAWN UP SO THAT THE COMMUNITIES '  OWN RESOURCES MAY BE COLLECTED IN A UNIFORM MANNER IN ALL THE MEMBER STATES '  AND DOES NOT EXPLAIN WHY THE ACTIVITIES LISTED WERE CHOSEN . THE COMMISSION HAS OBSERVED THAT THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY IS ALONE IN EXEMPTING THE SUPPLY OF SERVICES BY TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGS TO THE POSTAL AUTHORITY .
20 IT MUST THEREFORE BE CONCLUDED THAT THE GERMAN GOVERNMENT HAS FAILED TO SHOW ANY FACTORS RELATING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION WHICH PERMIT THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 13 A ( 1 ) ( A ) TO BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE LIMITS WHICH FOLLOW FROM THE ACTUAL WORDING OF THE PROVISION . SINCE NO OTHER PROVISION OF THE DIRECTIVE AUTHORIZES THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY TO DEROGATE FROM THE GENERAL SYSTEM OF TAXATION WHICH IT LAYS DOWN , IN PARTICULAR FROM ARTICLE 2 OF THE DIRECTIVE , BY EXEMPTING THE SUPPLY OF SERVICES EFFECTED FOR CONSIDERATION BY TRANSPORT UNDERTAKINGS FOR THE DEUTSCHE BUNDESPOST , THE COMMISSION ' S CLAIM THAT IT HAS FAILED TO FULFIL ITS OBLIGATIONS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED .