Directeur général des finances publiques v Mapfre asistencia compañia internacional de seguros y reaseguros SA and Mapfre warranty SpA v Directeur général des finances publiques.
Date: 2015-07-16
26. At the outset, it should be borne in mind that, according to settled case-law, the terms used to specify the exemptions in Article 13 of the Sixth Directive are to be interpreted strictly. However, the interpretation of those terms must be consistent with the objectives underlying those exemptions and must comply with the requirements of the principle of fiscal neutrality inherent in the common system of VAT. Accordingly, that requirement of strict interpretation does not mean that the terms used to specify the exemptions referred to in Article 13 must be construed in such a way as to deprive the exemptions of their intended effects (see, inter alia, judgment in Zimmermann , C‑174/11, EU:C:2012:716, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).
27. Moreover, transactions which are covered by the exemptions laid down in Article 13 of the Sixth Directive constitute independent concepts of EU law, in order to avoid divergences in the application of the VAT system from one Member State to another (see, to that effect, judgments in CPP , C‑349/96, EU:C:1999:93, paragraph 15; in Taksatorringen , C‑8/01, EU:C:2003:621, paragraph 37; in Commission v Greece , C‑13/06, EU:C:2006:765, paragraph 9; and in BGŻ Leasing , C‑224/11, EU:C:2013:15, paragraph 56).
28. With regard, more specifically, to the concept of ‘insurance transactions’ in Article 13(B)(a) of the Sixth Directive, which is not defined in that directive, the Court has repeatedly held that the essentials of an insurance transaction are, as generally understood, that the insurer undertakes, in return for prior payment of a premium, to provide the insured party, in th e event of materialisation of the risk covered, with the service agreed when the contract was concluded (see, to that effect, judgments in Taksatorringen , C‑8/01, EU:C:2003:621, paragraph 39; in Commission v Greece , C‑13/06, EU:C:2006:765, paragraph 10; and in BGŻ Leasing , C‑224/11, EU:C:2013:15, paragraph 58).
29. The Court has stated that an insurance transaction necessarily implies the existence of a contractual relationship between the provider of the insurance service and the person whose risks are covered by the insurance, that is to say, the insured party (see judgments in Skandia , C‑240/99, EU:C:2001:140, paragraph 41; in Taksatorringen , C‑8/01, EU:C:2003:621, paragraph 41; and in BGŻ Leasing , C‑224/11, EU:C:2013:15, paragraph 58).
30. In addition, that concept of insurance transactions is in principle broad enough to include the provision of insurance cover by a taxable person who is not himself an insurer but who, in the context of a block policy, procures such cover for his customers by making use of the services provided by an insurer who assumes the risk insured (see, to that effect, judgments in CPP , C‑349/96, EU:C:1999:93, paragraph 22, and in BGŻ Leasing , C‑224/11, EU:C:2013:15, paragraph 59).
33. By reason of the spirit of cooperation in relations between the national courts and the Court of Justice in the context of the preliminary-ruling procedure, the lack of the necessary factual findings by the referring court does not inevitably render the request for a preliminary ruling inadmissible if, in spite of those failings, the Court, having regard to the information available from the file, considers that it is in a position to give a useful answer to the referring court (see, to that effect, judgment in Azienda sanitaria locale n. 5 ‘Spezzino’ and Others , C‑113/13, EU:C:2014:2440, paragraph 48).
49. In this regard, it should be recalled that, for VAT purposes, every transaction must normally be regarded as distinct and independent, as follows from Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive (see, to that effect, judgments in Aktiebolaget NN , C‑111/05, EU:C:2007:195, paragraph 22; in Field Fisher Waterhouse , C‑392/11, EU:C:2012:597, paragraph 14; and in BGŻ Leasing , C‑224/11, EU:C:2013:15, paragraph 29).
50. Nevertheless, it is clear from the case-law of the Court that, in certain circumstances, several formally distinct services, which could be supplied separately and thus give rise, separately, to taxation or exemption, must be considered to constitute a single transaction when they are not independent. There is a single supply where, inter alia, two or more elements or acts supplied by the taxable person to the customer are so closely linked that they form, objectively, a single, indivisible economic supply, which it would be artificial to split. Such is also the case where one or more elements are to be regarded as constituting the principal service, whilst one or more elements are to be regarded, by contrast, as ancillary services which share the tax treatment of the principal service (see judgment in BGŻ Leasing , C‑224/11, EU:C:2013:15, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).
51. With regard to insurance transactions, the Court has already held that every insurance transaction has, by its nature, a link with the item which it covers. None the less, such a link is not sufficient in itself to determine whether or not there is a single complex transaction for VAT purposes. If any insurance transaction were subject to VAT because the services relating to the item which it covers were subject to VAT, the very aim of Article 13(B)(a) of the Sixth Directive, that is to say, the exemption of insurance transactions, would be called into question (see, to that effect, judgment in BGŻ Leasing , C‑224/11, EU:C:2013:15, paragraph 36).
53. That being the case, it is appropriate to examine whether there are reasons arising from the facts at issue in the main proceedings which would suggest that the elements concerned constitute a single transaction (see, to that effect, judgment in BGŻ Leasing , C‑224/11, EU:C:2013:15, paragraph 40).
54. From that perspective, it must be recalled first of all that, according to the case-law of the Court on the definition of a single transaction, as set out in paragraph 50 of the present judgment, a service is regarded as ancillary to a principal service in particular where it does not constitute for the customers an aim in itself, but a means of better enjoying the principal service (see judgment in BGŻ Leasing , C‑224/11, EU:C:2013:15, paragraph 41).