Case C‑584/13

Directeur général des finances publiques

v

Mapfre asistencia compañia internacional de seguros y reaseguros SA

and

Mapfre warranty SpA

v

Directeur général des finances publiques

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France))

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Turnover tax — Scope — Exemption — Notion of ‘insurance transactions’ — Notion of ‘supply of services’ — Lump sum for a warranty covering breakdowns of a second-hand vehicle’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 16 July 2015

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual context

   (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 94)

2. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive — Exemption for insurance and re-insurance — Concept — Supply of services consisting of a warranty, in return for payment of a lump sum, covering mechanical breakdowns which may affect certain parts of the second-hand vehicle — Supply provided by an economic operator which is independent of a second-hand motor-vehicle dealer — Included — Provision and sale of the second-hand vehicle having to be considered to be a single supply or distinct supplies — Assessment by the national court

   (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(a), as amended by Directive 91/680)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 31-33)

2.  Article 13(B)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 91/680, must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of services whereby an economic operator which is independent of a second-hand motor-vehicle dealer provides, in return for payment of a lump sum, a warranty covering mechanical breakdowns which may affect certain parts of that vehicle constitutes an exempt insurance transaction within the meaning of that provision.

   Irrespective of whether a contract is concluded between the purchaser of the second-hand vehicle and an economic operator independent of the dealer selling that vehicle, that dealer acting merely as an intermediary, whether it is the dealer which concludes the contract in its own name but on behalf of the purchaser, or, finally, whether the dealer transfers to the purchaser the rights arising from the contract which the dealer concluded in its own name and on its own behalf with the independent economic operator, the concept of ‘insurance transactions’, within the meaning of Article 13(B)(a) of the Sixth Directive, is broad enough to cover each of those situations.

   Furthermore, categorisation of a service as an ‘insurance transaction’ within the meaning of Article 13(B)(a) of the Sixth Directive cannot depend on the manner in which the insurer manages the level of the risk which it undertakes to cover and calculates the exact amount of the premium. In this regard, the essence of an ‘insurance transaction’, within the meaning of Article 13(B)(a) of the Sixth Directive, lies in the fact that the insured person is exempted from the risk of bearing financial loss, which is uncertain, but potentially significant, by the premium, payment of which for that person is certain but limited.

   Finally, the provision of such a supply and the sale of the second-hand vehicle must, in principle, be considered to be distinct and independent supplies, to be treated separately from the point of view of VAT. It is for the referring court to determine whether the sale of a second-hand vehicle and the warranty provided by an independent economic operator to the dealer selling that second-hand vehicle covering mechanical breakdowns which may affect certain parts of that vehicle are so interconnected that they must be regarded as constituting a single transaction or whether, on the contrary, they are independent transactions.

   (see paras 38, 41, 42, 58, operative part)

Case C‑584/13

Directeur général des finances publiques

v

Mapfre asistencia compañia internacional de seguros y reaseguros SA

and

Mapfre warranty SpA

v

Directeur général des finances publiques

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France))

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Turnover tax — Scope — Exemption — Notion of ‘insurance transactions’ — Notion of ‘supply of services’ — Lump sum for a warranty covering breakdowns of a second-hand vehicle’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 16 July 2015

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need to provide the Court with sufficient information on the factual context

   (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 94)

2. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive — Exemption for insurance and re-insurance — Concept — Supply of services consisting of a warranty, in return for payment of a lump sum, covering mechanical breakdowns which may affect certain parts of the second-hand vehicle — Supply provided by an economic operator which is independent of a second-hand motor-vehicle dealer — Included — Provision and sale of the second-hand vehicle having to be considered to be a single supply or distinct supplies — Assessment by the national court

   (Council Directive 77/388, Art. 13B(a), as amended by Directive 91/680)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 31-33)

2.  Article 13(B)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, as amended by Directive 91/680, must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of services whereby an economic operator which is independent of a second-hand motor-vehicle dealer provides, in return for payment of a lump sum, a warranty covering mechanical breakdowns which may affect certain parts of that vehicle constitutes an exempt insurance transaction within the meaning of that provision.

   Irrespective of whether a contract is concluded between the purchaser of the second-hand vehicle and an economic operator independent of the dealer selling that vehicle, that dealer acting merely as an intermediary, whether it is the dealer which concludes the contract in its own name but on behalf of the purchaser, or, finally, whether the dealer transfers to the purchaser the rights arising from the contract which the dealer concluded in its own name and on its own behalf with the independent economic operator, the concept of ‘insurance transactions’, within the meaning of Article 13(B)(a) of the Sixth Directive, is broad enough to cover each of those situations.

   Furthermore, categorisation of a service as an ‘insurance transaction’ within the meaning of Article 13(B)(a) of the Sixth Directive cannot depend on the manner in which the insurer manages the level of the risk which it undertakes to cover and calculates the exact amount of the premium. In this regard, the essence of an ‘insurance transaction’, within the meaning of Article 13(B)(a) of the Sixth Directive, lies in the fact that the insured person is exempted from the risk of bearing financial loss, which is uncertain, but potentially significant, by the premium, payment of which for that person is certain but limited.

   Finally, the provision of such a supply and the sale of the second-hand vehicle must, in principle, be considered to be distinct and independent supplies, to be treated separately from the point of view of VAT. It is for the referring court to determine whether the sale of a second-hand vehicle and the warranty provided by an independent economic operator to the dealer selling that second-hand vehicle covering mechanical breakdowns which may affect certain parts of that vehicle are so interconnected that they must be regarded as constituting a single transaction or whether, on the contrary, they are independent transactions.

   (see paras 38, 41, 42, 58, operative part)