TMD Gesellschaft für transfusionsmedizinische Dienste mbH v Finanzamt Kassel II - Hofgeismar.
Date: 2016-10-05
18


In that regard, it must be stated that neither the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union nor the Court’s Rules of Procedure make provision for the parties to submit observations in response to the Advocate General’s Opinion (order of 4 February 2000, Emesa Sugar, C‑17/98, EU:C:2000:69, paragraph 2, and judgment of 6 September 2012, Döhler Neuenkirchen, C‑262/10, EU:C:2012:559, paragraph 29).
24


As a preliminary point, it must be recalled that, in accordance with the Court’s settled case-law, the concepts in Article 132 constitute independent concepts of EU law the purpose of which is to avoid divergences in the application of the VAT system as between one Member State and another (judgment of 26 February 2015, VDP Dental Laboratory and Others, C‑144/13, C‑154/13 and C‑160/13, EU:C:2015:116, paragraph 44).
26


In those circumstances, the meaning and scope of that concept must be determined by considering its usual meaning in everyday language, while also taking into account the context in which it occurs and the purposes of the rules of which it is part (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 October 2012, Ketelä, C‑592/11, EU:C:2012:673, paragraph 51 and the case-law cited).
30


Next, as regards the purpose of the provisions of Article 132 of Directive 2006/112, it must be recalled that that article aims to exempt from VAT certain activities in the public interest with a view to facilitating access to certain services and the supply of certain goods by avoiding the increased costs that would result if they were subject to VAT (see, to that effect, judgment of 26 February 2015, VDP Dental Laboratory and Others, C‑144/13, C‑154/13 and C‑160/13, EU:C:2015:116, paragraphs 43 and 45 and the case-law cited).
31


Finally, as regards Article 132(1)(d) of Directive 2006/112, it must be pointed out that that provision, like points (b), (c) and (e) of that paragraph, concerns transactions directly linked to healthcare or which have a therapeutic purpose.
32


Therefore, the exemption of supplies of human blood provided for under Article 132(1)(d) of Directive 2006/112 must be understood as being aimed at ensuring that the supply of goods contributing to healthcare or which have a therapeutic purpose does not become inaccessible by reason of the increased costs of those products if their supply were subject to VAT (see, by analogy, judgment of 26 February 2015, VDP Dental Laboratory and Others, C‑144/13, C‑154/13 and C‑160/13, EU:C:2015:116, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited).
33


Having regard to the foregoing, the supply of human blood, including the supply of plasma which is a component of blood, must come under the exemption provided for in Article 132(1)(d) of Directive 2006/112 where that supply contributes directly to activities in the public interest, that is to say, where the plasma supplied is used directly for healthcare or for therapeutic purposes.
34


That said, it must be recalled that the terms used to specify the exemptions referred to in Article 132 of Directive 2006/112 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 (see, to that effect, inter alia, judgments of 28 July 2011, Nordea Pankki Suomi, C‑350/10, EU:C:2011:532, paragraph 23, and of 22 October 2015, Hedqvist, C‑264/14, EU:C:2015:718, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).