European Community v Belgian State.
Date: 2006-10-26
21. As the Court has already held, the distinction between a tax intended to provide for the general expenses of public authorities and a charge which constitutes consideration for a given service is expressly recognised by Article 3 of the Protocol. The Court pointed out that the very concept of consideration for a specific service presupposes that that service is provided, or at least may be provided, to those paying the charge (Case C-191/94 AGF Belgium  [1996] ECR I‑1859, paragraphs 25 and 26).
24. In accordance with the settled case-law of the Court in a field of Community law which involves a similar notion to that at issue in this case, namely ‘ duties paid by way of fees or dues’ referred to in Article 12(1)(e) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412), duties with no upper limit which increase directly in proportion to the nominal value cannot, by their very nature, constitute duties paid by way of fees or dues for a service rendered. The amount of such a duty will generally bear no relation to the costs actually incurred by the Administration in drawing up the instrument in question (see, to that effect, Case C-19/99 Modelo  [2000] ECR I-7213, paragraph 33, and Case C-206/99 SONAE  [2001] ECR I‑4679, paragraph 34).
25. According to that case-law the characterisation of a duty as a charge for public utility services requires there to be a direct and proportional link between the actual cost of that service and the duty paid by the recipient, that is to say a correlation between the price paid by the latter in consideration for a specific service and the real cost incurred by the Administration through performance of the service.
31. For the purposes of answering that question, it should be pointed out that, unlike the first paragraph of Article 3 of the Protocol, which provides, unconditionally and in general, for the exemption of the Communities and their assets, revenue and other property from all direct taxation at national level, the exemption from taxation laid down in the second paragraph of that article is not unlimited. The latter provision establishes, under certain conditions which are clearly specified, the remission or refund of indirect taxes or sales taxes charged on property bought by the Communities for their official use. The Court has interpreted the second paragraph of Article 3 of the Protocol as meaning that all types of purchase, including obtaining a supply of services, which are necessary for the accomplishment of the Communities’ task fall within its scope (see AGF Belgium , cited above, paragraph 36).
42. As regards, thirdly, the argument concerning the interpretation of the second paragraph of Article 3 of the Protocol in the light of the aims of that article, it should be recalled that the fiscal immunity necessary for the performance of its tasks, which the Community enjoys on the basis of Article 291 EC, is granted ‘under the conditions laid down in the Protocol’. An interpretation in the light of the context and aims of a provision cannot have the result of depriving the clear and precise wording of that provision of all effectiveness (see to that effect, as regards the privileges and immunities of the European Central Bank, Case C‑220/03 ECB v Germany [2005] ECR I‑10595, paragraph 31).