Case C‑334/14

État belge

v

Nathalie De Fruytier

(Request for a preliminary ruling
from the Cour d’appel de Mons)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest — Article 13(A)(1)(b) and (c) — Hospital and medical care — Closely related activities — Activity of transporting human organs and samples of human origin for the purposes of medical analysis or medical or therapeutic care — Self-employed activity — Hospitals, centres for medical treatment and diagnosis — Establishment of a similar nature)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber), 2 July 2015

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive — Exemption in respect of the provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — Transportation by a self-employed third party of human organs and samples of human origin for the purposes of medical analysis or medical or therapeutic care — Not included — Activities closely related to services of a medical nature — Establishment of a similar nature — Not included

(Council Directive 77/388, Art 13A(1)(b) and (c))

Neither Article 13(A)(1)(b) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, nor Article 13(A)(1)(c) thereof, can be interpreted as applying to the transportation, for clinics and laboratories, of human organs and samples of human origin for the purposes of medical analysis or medical or therapeutic care, by a third party who is self-employed and whose services are covered by the reimbursement made by the social security system. In particular, such an activity does not qualify for an exemption from value added tax as an activity closely related to services of a medical nature as provided for in Article 13(A)(1)(b), since that self-employed third party cannot be characterised as a ‘body governed by public law’ or fall within the definition of a ‘hospital’, a ‘centre for medical treatment’ or a centre for ‘diagnosis’ or any ‘other duly recognised establishment of a similar nature’, operating under social conditions comparable to those applicable to bodies governed by public law.

First, that activity clearly does not constitute ‘medical care’ or ‘the provision of medical care’ within the meaning of Article 13(A)(1)(b) and (c) of the Sixth Directive, since it is not covered by medical services which have as their direct purpose the actual diagnosis, treatment or cure of diseases or health disorders, or the actual protection, maintenance or restoration of health.

Secondly, unlike, in particular, a laboratory governed by private law and undertaking diagnostic medical tests with a therapeutic purpose, a self-employed transporter is not an individualised entity performing the same type of particular function as hospitals or centres for medical treatment or diagnosis.

(see paras 23, 25, 36, 39, operative part)