Velvet & Steel Immobilien und Handels GmbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Eimsbüttel.
Date: 2007-04-19
14. As a preliminary point, it should be noted that the terms used to specify the exemptions provided for by Article 13 of the Sixth Directive 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, inter alia, Case C-472/03 Arthur Andersen  [2005] ECR I‑1719, paragraph 24; Case C‑415/04 Stichting Kinderopvang Enschede  [2006] ECR I‑1385, paragraph 13; and Case C‑89/05 United Utilities  [2006] ECR I-6813, paragraph 21).
15. It is also settled case‑law that those exemptions constitute independent concepts of Community law whose purpose is to avoid divergences in the application of the VAT system from one Member State to another (Case C‑8/01 Taksatorringen  [2003] ECR I‑13711, paragraph 37, and Joined Cases C‑394/04 and C‑395/04 Ygeia  [2005] ECR I‑10373, paragraph 15).
16. Community provisions must therefore be interpreted and applied uniformly in the light of the versions existing in all the Community languages (see Case C‑449/93 Rockfon  [1995] ECR I‑4291, paragraph 28, and Case C‑280/04 Jyske Finans  [2005] ECR I‑10683, paragraph 31).
19. 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).
20. In view of the linguistic differences, the scope of the phrase in question cannot be determined on the basis of an interpretation which is exclusively textual. That expression must therefore be interpreted in the light of the context in which it is used and of the aims and scheme of the Sixth Directive (see, to that effect, Case C‑2/95 SDC  [1997] ECR I‑3017, paragraph 22; Case C‑428/02 Fonden Marselisborg Lystbådehavn  [2005] ECR I‑1527, paragraph 42; and Jyske Finans , paragraph 31).
21. Concerning the context in which the expression is used, it is clear that the exemption provided for in Article 13B(d)(2) of the Sixth Directive concerns, in addition to the assumption of obligations, the negotiation and assumption of credit guarantees or any other security for money and the management of credit guarantees. It is common ground that all those transactions are, by their nature, financial services.
22. The same conclusion is also valid for the other transactions set out in subparagraphs 1 and 3 to 6 of Article 13B(d) of the Sixth Directive. Thus, subparagraph 1 concerns credit; subparagraph 3, deposit and current accounts, payments, transfers, debts, cheques and other negotiable instruments; subparagraph 4, legal tender; subparagraph 5, shares and other securities, and subparagraph 6, management of special investment funds. Although those transactions, defined according to the nature of the services provided, do not necessarily have to be carried out by banks or other financial institutions (see, to that effect, SDC , paragraph 32; Case C‑305/01 MKG-Kraftfahrzeuge-Factoring  [2003] ECR I‑6729, paragraph 64; and Case C‑169/04 Abbey National [2006] ECR I‑4027, paragraph 66), they relate, nevertheless, as a whole, to the sphere of financial transactions.
23. In the present case, the assumption of the obligation to renovate a building is not, by its nature, a financial transaction within the meaning of Article 13B(d) of the Sixth Directive and therefore it does not come within the scope of that provision.
24. That interpretation is, moreover, supported by the purpose of the exemption for financial transactions, which, as the Commission of the European Communities explains in its written observations, is to alleviate the difficulties connected with determining the tax base and the amount of VAT deductible and to avoid an increase in the cost of consumer credit. Since subjecting the assumption of an obligation to renovate a property to VAT does not present such difficulties, that transaction cannot be exempted.