Language of document :

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 16 October 2017 — Belgisch Syndicaat van Chiropraxie and Others

(Case C-597/17)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Belgisch Syndicaat van Chiropraxie, Bart Vandendries, Belgische Unie van Osteopaten and Others, Plast.Surg. and Others, Belgian Society for Private Clinics and Others

Other party: Ministerraad

Questions referred

1.    Should Article 132(1)(c) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC 1 of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax be interpreted as meaning that that provision reserves the exemption to which it refers, in the case of both conventional and non-conventional practices, to practitioners of a medical or a paramedical profession that is subject to national legislation governing the healthcare professions and who meet the requirements laid down by that national legislation, and that persons who do not meet those requirements, but who are affiliated to a professional association of chiropractors or osteopaths and who meet the requirements laid down by that association, are excluded from that exemption?

2.    Should Article 132(1)(b), (c) and (e), Article 134 and Article 98 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in conjunction with points 3 and 4 of Annex III to that directive, in particular from the point of view of the principle of fiscal neutrality, be interpreted as meaning:

(a)    that they preclude a national provision which provides for a reduced rate of VAT to be applicable to medicinal products and medical aids supplied in connection with an operation or treatment of a therapeutic nature, whereas medicinal products and medical aids supplied in connection with an operation or treatment of a purely aesthetic nature, and closely related thereto, are subject to the normal rate of VAT;

(b)    or that they permit or require equal treatment of both the aforementioned cases?

3.    Is there an obligation on the Constitutional Court to maintain, on a temporary basis, the effects of the ... provisions to be annulled, as well as those of the provisions which, if necessary, must be annulled in whole or in part, if it follows from the answer to the first or the second question to be referred that those provisions are contrary to EU law, in order to enable the legislature to bring them into line with EU law?

____________

1 OJ 2006, L 347, p. 1.