RLRE Tellmer Property sro v Finanční ředitelství v Ústí nad Labem.
Date: 2009-06-11
15. In that respect, it should first be recalled that, according to consistent case-law, the exemptions under Article 13 of the Sixth Directive have their own independent meaning in Community law and must therefore be given a Community definition (Case C‑174/06 CO.GE.P  [2007] ECR I‑9359, paragraph 26 and case-law cited).
16. The terms used to specify the exemptions under Article 13 of the Sixth Directive are to be interpreted strictly, since these exemptions constitute exceptions to the general principle that VAT is to be levied on all goods or services supplied for consideration by a taxable person acting as such (see, in particular, Case C‑150/99 Stockholm Lindöpark  [2001] ECR I‑493, paragraph 25, and Case C‑280/04 Jyske Finans  [2005] ECR I‑10683, paragraph 21 and case-law cited).
17. Secondly, it follows from Article 2 of the Sixth Directive that every transaction must normally be regarded as distinct and independent (Case C‑425/06 Part Service  [2008] ECR I‑897, paragraph 50 and case-law cited).
18. Moreover, in certain circumstances, several formally distinct services, which could be supplied separately and thus give rise, in turn, to taxation or exemption, must be considered to be a single transaction when they are not independent. Such is the case for example, where, in the course of a purely objective analysis, it is found that there is a single supply in cases 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. In particular, a service must be regarded as ancillary to a principal service if it does not constitute for customers an aim in itself, but a means of better enjoying the principal service supplied ( Part Service , paragraphs 51 and 52 and case-law cited).
19. It can also be held that there is a single supply where 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 ( Part Service , paragraph 53).
20. It should be remembered at the outset that the letting of immovable property within the meaning of Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive essentially consists in the conferring by a landlord on a tenant, for an agreed period and in return for payment, of the right to occupy property as if that person were the owner and to exclude any other person from enjoyment of such a right (see, to that effect, Case C‑326/99 ‘Goed Wonen’  [2001] ECR I‑6831, paragraph 55; Case C‑409/98 Mirror Group  [2001] ECR I‑7175, paragraph 31; Case C‑269/00 Seeling  [2003] ECR I‑4101, paragraph 49; and Case C‑284/03 Temco Europe  [2004] ECR I‑11237, paragraph 19).
22. It is, moreover, undisputed that the cleaning services of the common parts of an apartment block can be supplied in various ways, such as, for example, a third party invoicing the cost of the service direct to the tenants or by the landlord employing his own staff for the purpose or using a cleaning company.
24. Also, since the letting of apartments and the cleaning of the common parts of an apartment block can, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, be separated from each other, such letting and such cleaning cannot be regarded as constituting a single transaction within the meaning of the case-law of the Court.