EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CJ0091
Summary of the Judgment
Summary of the Judgment
Case C-91/12
Skatteverket
v
PCF Clinic AB
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen)
‛VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Article 132(1)(b) and (c) — Hospital and medical care and closely related activities — Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — Services consisting in the performance of plastic surgery and cosmetic treatments — Interventions of a purely cosmetic nature based solely on the patient’s wishes’
Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 21 March 2013
Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions — Exemption for hospital and medical care and closely related activities — Exemption in respect of the provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — Medical care or the provision of medical care — Definition — Plastic surgery and other cosmetic treatments — Included — Condition — Criteria for assessment
(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 132(1)(b) and (c))
Article 132(b) and (c) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that:
|
— |
supplies of services, consisting in plastic surgery and other cosmetic treatments, fall within the concepts of ‘medical care’ and ‘the provision of medical care’ within the meaning of Article 132(1)(b) and (c) where those services are intended to diagnose, treat or cure diseases or health disorders or to protect, maintain or restore human health; |
|
— |
the subjective understanding that the person who undergoes plastic surgery or a cosmetic treatment has of it are not in themselves decisive in order to determine whether that intervention has a therapeutic purpose; |
|
— |
the fact that services at issue are supplied or undertaken by a licensed member of the medical profession or that the purpose of such services is determined by such a professional may influence the assessment of whether interventions such as those at issue in the main proceedings fall within the concept of ‘medical care’ or ‘the provision of medical care’ within the meaning of Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2006/112 respectively, and that |
|
— |
in order to determine whether supplies of services are exempt from VAT pursuant to Article 132(1)(b) or (c) of Directive 2006/112 all the requirements laid down in subparagraphs 1(b) or (c) thereof must be taken into account as well as the other relevant provisions in Title IX, Chapters 1 and 2, of that directive such as, as far as concerns Article 132(1)(b), Articles 131, 133 and 134 thereof. |
(see para. 39, operative part)
Case C-91/12
Skatteverket
v
PCF Clinic AB
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen)
‛VAT — Directive 2006/112/EC — Exemptions — Article 132(1)(b) and (c) — Hospital and medical care and closely related activities — Provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — Services consisting in the performance of plastic surgery and cosmetic treatments — Interventions of a purely cosmetic nature based solely on the patient’s wishes’
Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 21 March 2013
Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions — Exemption for hospital and medical care and closely related activities — Exemption in respect of the provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions — Medical care or the provision of medical care — Definition — Plastic surgery and other cosmetic treatments — Included — Condition — Criteria for assessment
(Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 132(1)(b) and (c))
Article 132(b) and (c) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that:
|
— |
supplies of services, consisting in plastic surgery and other cosmetic treatments, fall within the concepts of ‘medical care’ and ‘the provision of medical care’ within the meaning of Article 132(1)(b) and (c) where those services are intended to diagnose, treat or cure diseases or health disorders or to protect, maintain or restore human health; |
|
— |
the subjective understanding that the person who undergoes plastic surgery or a cosmetic treatment has of it are not in themselves decisive in order to determine whether that intervention has a therapeutic purpose; |
|
— |
the fact that services at issue are supplied or undertaken by a licensed member of the medical profession or that the purpose of such services is determined by such a professional may influence the assessment of whether interventions such as those at issue in the main proceedings fall within the concept of ‘medical care’ or ‘the provision of medical care’ within the meaning of Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of Directive 2006/112 respectively, and that |
|
— |
in order to determine whether supplies of services are exempt from VAT pursuant to Article 132(1)(b) or (c) of Directive 2006/112 all the requirements laid down in subparagraphs 1(b) or (c) thereof must be taken into account as well as the other relevant provisions in Title IX, Chapters 1 and 2, of that directive such as, as far as concerns Article 132(1)(b), Articles 131, 133 and 134 thereof. |
(see para. 39, operative part)