Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft v Franz Götz.
Date: 2007-12-13
15. Although Article 4 of the Sixth Directive gives a very wide scope to VAT, only activities of an economic nature are, however, covered by that provision (see, to that effect, Case C-306/94 Régie dauphinoise   [1996] ECR I-3695, paragraph 15, and Case C-465/03 Kretztechnik   [2005] ECR I-4357, paragraph 18). In particular, the application of Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive implies a prior finding that the activity considered is of an economic nature (Case C-284/04 T-Mobile Austria and Others  [2007] ECR I-0000, paragraph 48).
17. It must be borne in mind, in that regard, that according to settled case-law the definition of ‘economic activity’ is objective in character, in the sense that the activity is considered per se and without regard to its purpose or results (Case 235/85 Commission  v Netherlands  [1987] ECR 1471, paragraph 8, and Case C‑223/03 University of Huddersfield  [2006] ECR I-1751, paragraph 47).
18. ‘Economic activity’ is defined in Article 4(2) of the Sixth Directive as including all activities of producers, traders and persons supplying services, inter alia the exploitation of tangible or intangible property for the purpose of obtaining income therefrom on a continuing basis ( Régie dauphinoise , paragraph 15, and T-Mobile Austria and Others , paragraph 33). The latter criteria, relating to the permanent nature of the activity and the income which is obtained from it, have been treated by the case-law as applying not only to the exploitation of property, but to all of the activities referred to in Article 4(2) of the Sixth Directive. An activity is thus, generally, categorised as economic where it is permanent and is carried out in return for remuneration which is received by the person carrying out the activity (see to that effect, Commission  v Netherlands , paragraphs 9 and 15).
19. In that regard, the activity at issue in the main proceedings in the present case consists in gathering, for a given milk marketing year, the objectives of milk producers, in order to allow those who plan to produce at below the threshold applicable to them to sell the delivery reference quantities which they think they will not use and to allow those who intend, conversely, to exceed that threshold to purchase the corresponding delivery reference quantities without being caught by the additional levy provided for by Regulation  No 3950/92. That activity also involves making the offer and the application overlap by fixing a mean price, receiving the delivery reference quantities sold and allocating them to purchasers and receiving and then paying the sums agreed upon for the transfer of those reference quantities.  It follows that the activity in question must be treated, for the purposes of the Sixth Directive, as a supply of services, as a result of which the offers and the applications of milk producers are compared, thereby allowing a mean price to be set. Consequently, unlike the activity at issue in the case which gave rise to the judgment in T-Mobile Austria and Others  (paragraph 43), the activity forming the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings in the present case does appear to be capable, as a matter of principle, of being carried out by economic operators.
21. It is also for that national court to establish, if necessary, whether the activity is carried out by the milk-quota sales points for the purpose of receiving that remuneration (see, to that effect, Régie dauphinoise , paragraph 15), while taking account of the fact that the receipt of a payment does not, per se, mean that a given activity is economic in nature (see, to that effect, T-Mobile and Others , paragraph 45, and the case-law cited).
29. It must, in that regard, be borne in mind that Community provisions must be interpreted and applied uniformly in the light of the versions existing in all the languages of the European Community (see Case C‑449/93 Rockfon  [1995] ECR I‑4291, paragraph 28; Case C-296/95 EMU Tabac and Others  [1998] ECR I‑1605, paragraph 36; and Case C‑280/04 Jyske Finans  [2005] ECR I‑10683, paragraph 31).
30. It is settled case-law that the wording used in one language version of a Community provision cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision, or be made to override the other language versions in that regard. Such an approach would be incompatible with the requirement of the uniform application of Community law (see Case C‑149/97 Institute of the Motor Industry  [1998] ECR I‑7053, paragraph 16).
41. It is important to point out at the outset that Article 4(5) of the Sixth Directive provides an exemption for bodies governed by public law when acting as public authorities and that both conditions must be fulfilled (see, to that effect, Case 107/84 Commission  v Germany  [1985] ECR 2655, and Commission  v Netherlands , paragraphs 20 and 21).