Belgian State v Nathalie De Fruytier.
Date: 2010-06-03
19. It must be recalled at the outset that the Sixth Directive confers a very wide scope of application on VAT, covering all economic activities of producers, traders and persons supplying services. However, Article 13 of that directive exempts from VAT certain activities of public interest (Article 13(A)) and other activities (Article 13(B)) (see Case C-253/07 Canterbury Hockey Club and Canterbury Ladies Hockey Club [2008] ECR I‑7821, paragraph 15, and Case C-473/08 Eulitz [2010] ECR I‑0000, point 24).
20. Also, according to consistent case-law, the terms used to specify an exemption contained in Article 13 of the Sixth Directive are to be interpreted strictly, since that exemption constitutes an exception to the general principle that VAT is to be levied on all services supplied for consideration by a taxable person. 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 (see Case C‑434/05 Horizon College  [2007] ECR I‑4793, paragraph 16; Case C‑445/05 Haderer [2007] ECR I‑4841, paragraph 18 and case‑law cited; and Case C‑461/08 Don Bosco Onroerend Goed [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 25 and case-law cited).
21. According to the case-law of the Court, the exemptions provided for in Article 13 of the Sixth Directive constitute independent concepts of European Union law whose purpose is to avoid divergences in the application of the VAT system from one Member State to another (see, in particular, Case C‑349/96 CPP  [1999] ECR I‑973, paragraph 15; Horizon College , paragraph 15; and Case C‑242/08 Swiss Re Germany Holding [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 33). As a consequence, the terms of a provision of the Sixth Directive which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the Union (see to that effect Case C-497/01 Zita Modes [2003] ECR I‑14393, paragraph 34, and Case C‑25/03 HE  [2005] ECR I‑3123, paragraph 63).
22. It follows from the foregoing that the ‘supply of goods’, to which Article 13(A)(1)(d) of the Sixth Directive refers in connection with ‘supplies of human organs, blood and milk’, must be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation specific to the law of the European Union.
23. In that regard, it must be recalled that Article 5(1) of the Sixth Directive provides that ‘“supply of goods” shall mean the transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner’ (see Case C‑111/05 Aktiebolaget NN  [2007] ECR I‑2697, paragraph 31). Also, it is clear from Article 6(1) of the Sixth Directive that the term ‘supply of services’ covers any transaction not constituting a supply of goods within the meaning of Article 5 of that directive (see Case C‑88/09 Graphic Procédé  [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 17).
24. Moreover, it follows from the case-law of the Court that the concept of supply of goods does not refer to the transfer of ownership in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the applicable national law but covers any transfer of tangible property by one party which empowers the other party actually to dispose of it as if he were its owner (see, to that effect, Case C‑320/88 Shipping and Forwarding Enterprise Safe [1990] ECR I‑285, paragraphs 7 and 8; Case C‑291/92 Armbrecht  [1995] ECR I‑2775, paragraphs 13 and 14; Case C‑185/01 Auto Lease Holland [2003] ECR I‑1317, paragraphs 32 and 33; and Aktiebolaget NN , paragraph 32 and case-law cited).
25. If an activity of transporting human organs and samples, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, merely involves physically moving the goods concerned from one place to another for various hospitals and laboratories, such activity cannot equate to a ‘supply of goods’ within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Sixth Directive since it does not enable the other party actually to dispose of the goods at issue as if he were the owner.