1.

Is a national rule – Article 20(1)(6) of the VAT Law – which contains the stipulation that it relates to services provided directly and exclusively to the exempt activity (‘(a) such services are used directly and exclusively in the course of that activity and are necessary in order to carry it out;’) contrary to the meaning and purpose intended by the EU legislature with the exemption contained in Article 132(1)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) where that stipulation is interpreted such that a service – cleaning in the area of healthcare – [is not considered to be] exclusive to that exempt sector, even though it is singular, technical and complex in its organisation and nature, as well as absolutely necessary?

2.

Is an interpretation of Article 20(1)(6) of the VAT Law contrary to the meaning and purpose intended by the EU legislature with the exemption contained in Article 132(1)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC where, in order to refuse the exemption in accordance with EU limits, non-exclusivity in the provision of the service to the activity is equated with causing distortion of competition, thereby combining national and EU limits in order to refuse it? Please clarify whether the limit of ‘not distorting competition’ implies refusing the exemption, if it is not disputed by the parties, whatever the extent of its effect may be ([judgment of 20 November 2003, Taksatorringen, C-8/01, EU:C:2003:621], paragraph 48), on the basis that any exemption is a break with the general principle – acknowledged by the Court of Justice – of liability to tax.