Acesso ao direito da União Europeia
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">Mais informações sobre o espaço das funcionalidades experimentais</a>
Escolha as funcionalidades experimentais que pretende experimentar
Eur-Lex
Acesso ao direito da União Europeia

Este documento é um excerto do sítio EUR-Lex

Está aqui
Utilize aspas para pesquisar uma "expressão exata". Acrescente um asterisco (*) a um termo de pesquisa para encontrar variantes (transp*, 32019R*). Use um ponto de interrogação (?) em vez de um caráter no seu termo de pesquisa para encontrar diferentes termos em que só esse caráter varia (ca?a permite encontrar casa, caça, cana, capa).
Conselhos para pesquisar
Necessita de mais opções de pesquisa? Utilize a Pesquisa avançada

Documento 62017CN0597

    Case C-597/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 16 October 2017 — Belgisch Syndicaat van Chiropraxie and Others

    OJ C 22, 22.1.2018, p. 19—20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Data do documento:
    16/10/2017
    Data de a presentação:
    16/10/2017
    Autor:
    Court of Justice
    Forma:
    Judicial information
    Língua que faz fé:
    Dutch
    Tipo de processo:
    Reference for a preliminary ruling
    Ligação
    Selecionar todos os documentos que citam este documento
    Com repercussões sobre:
    • Apresenta uma questão prejudicial sobre 32006L0112 annex III point 3
    • Apresenta uma questão prejudicial sobre 32006L0112 annex III point 4
    • Apresenta uma questão prejudicial sobre 32006L0112 article 132 paragraph 1 point (b)
    • Apresenta uma questão prejudicial sobre 32006L0112 article 132 paragraph 1 point (c)
    • Apresenta uma questão prejudicial sobre 32006L0112 article 132 paragraph 1 point (e)
    • Apresenta uma questão prejudicial sobre 32006L0112 article 134
    • Apresenta uma questão prejudicial sobre 32006L0112 article 98
    Ligação

    22.1.2018   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 22/19

    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)

    (2018/C 022/29)

    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.

    Início