Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2005/006/50

Case C-444/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that court of 15 October 2004 in the case of J.E. van den Hout-van Ejnsbergen against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — ondernemingen Leiden

JO C 6, 8.1.2005, p. 26–26 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

8.1.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/26


Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden by order of that court of 15 October 2004 in the case of J.E. van den Hout-van Ejnsbergen against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — ondernemingen Leiden

(Case C-444/04)

(2005/C 6/50)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands Supreme Court), Third Chamber (Netherlands) of 15 October 2004 received at the Court Registry on 20 October 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of J.E. van den Hout-van Ejnsbergen against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst — ondernemingen Leiden on the following question:

Must Article 13(A)(1)(c) of the Sixth Directive (1) be construed as meaning that psychotherapeutic treatments provided by a person carrying on a profession who satisfies the legal requirements for registration listed in paragraph 3.1, and is registered in the Register of Psychotherapists, are exempt from VAT, even where those interventions cannot be subsumed within the exercise, by the person carrying out those interventions, of a medical or paramedical profession as defined by the Member State concerned?


(1)  OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.


Top