Stichting Centraal Begeleidingsorgaan voor de Intercollegiale Toetsing v Staatssecretaris van Financiën.
Date: 2008-12-11
27. First of all, as regards the conditions for the application of Article 13A(1)(f) of the Sixth Directive concerning the purpose of the supply of services to members of the independent group and the likelihood of distortion of competition, it must be borne in mind that, in the procedure of cooperation established by Article 234 EC, it is not for the Court of Justice but for the national court to ascertain the facts which have given rise to the dispute and to establish the consequences which they have for the judgment which it is required to deliver (see, inter alia, Case C‑435/97 WWF and Others  [1999] ECR I‑5613, paragraph 32; Case C‑510/99 Tridon  [2001] ECR I‑7777, paragraph 28; and Case C‑291/05 Eind  [2007] ECR I‑10719, paragraph 18).
29. Secondly, it is clear from the ninth and eleventh recitals in the preamble to the Sixth Directive that the directive is designed to harmonise the basis of assessment of VAT and that the exemptions from that tax constitute independent concepts of Community law which, as the Court has held, must be placed in the general context of the common system of VAT introduced by that directive (Case 235/85 Commission  v Netherlands  [1987] ECR 1471, paragraph 18, and Stichting Uitvoering Financiële Acties , paragraph 10).
30. It is, moreover, settled case-law that the terms used to specify the exemptions set out in Article 13 of the Sixth Directive are to be interpreted strictly, since they constitute exceptions to the general principle that VAT is to be levied on all services supplied for consideration by a taxable person ( Stichting Uitvoering Financiële Acties , paragraph 13; Taksatorri ngen , paragraph 36; and Case C‑434/05 Horizon College [2007] ECR I‑4793, paragraph 16). Nevertheless, the interpretation of those terms must be consistent with the objectives pursued by those exemptions and comply with the requirements of the principle of fiscal neutrality inherent in the common system of VAT. Thus, the requirement of strict interpretation does not mean that the terms used to specify the exemptions referred to in Article 13 should be construed in such a way as to deprive the exemptions of their intended effect ( Horizon College , paragraph 16). It is not the purpose of the case-law of the Court to impose an interpretation which would make the exemptions more or less inapplicable in practice ( Taksatorringen , paragraph 62).
36. The Netherlands Government’s interpretation would therefore restrict the scope of Article 13A(1)(f) of the Sixth Directive by excluding from the exemption from VAT services supplied by independent groups to their members, in particular in cases where the needs of those members differ.
37. Such a restriction of the scope of that provision is not supported by the purpose of that provision, which is to create an exemption from VAT in order to avoid an entity offering certain services from being required to pay that tax when it has found it necessary to cooperate with other entities by means of a common structure set up to undertake activities essential to the provision of those services.
39. Similarly, those services are supplied within the framework of the objectives for which the independent group has been set up and are therefore provided in accordance with the purpose of that group.