VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest EU VAT case law

14 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2003 to 2026.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 14 cases, most recent first

Under each case, what the Court decided, from its summary. The summaries are AI-generated and are not official documents: open the case for the Court’s own text.

T-444/25 Cavert

Judgment · 10 June 2026

Whether a VAT group can claim welfare and medical exemptions where the supplying member is not itself recognised

A VAT group may rely on the Article 132(1)(b) and (g) exemptions only where the services are supplied to third parties by a member which itself meets all the conditions, including, where it is not a public body, recognition as a medical care establishment or as a body of a social character. Grouping does not transfer one member's recognition to the others. The status conditions are assessed by reference to the person actually supplying, as a group member. The second question did not need answering. Healthcare, elderly care and disability care providers using VAT grouping in Member States that operate Article 11 cannot pool recognitions.

C-785/23 Bulgarian posts

Judgment · 19 June 2025 · Bulgaria

Scope of the exemption for public postal services under individually agreed terms

Exemption is precluded where the services meet the special needs of the persons concerned rather than being offered to all users, because they are supplied on more favourable conditions than those approved by the national regulator or set by the quality standards. Separate contracts alone do not defeat exemption, nor does failure to show that the price covers cost. Affordability concerns ability to pay. Supply at a public body's request does not save such services. For a universal service provider each contract is measured against the regulator-approved terms and the published quality standards, not merely against the national list of universal service items.

C-458/21 CIG Pannónia Életbiztosító

Judgment · 24 November 2022 · Hungary

Second medical opinion and treatment logistics bought in by an insurer

Neither of the two services is exempt under Article 132(1)(c). The diagnosis review is in substance an expert medical report. Its principal purpose is to answer the question put, so that a third party (the insurer) can decide on contractual entitlement, and any therapeutic effect is only indirect, even where additional analyses or foreign experts are used. The organisational element is essentially administrative, directed at the logistics of care abroad, not at protecting, maintaining or restoring health. Where an insurer or assistance company buys in medical-opinion and care-coordination services, those services are taxable, with reverse charge implications for cross-border purchases and no input credit where the insurer's own supplies are exempt.

C-612/20 Happy Education

Judgment · 28 April 2022 · Romania

Recognition of private after-school providers as bodies with similar objects

Article 132(1)(i) sets two cumulative conditions, on the nature of the supply and on the supplier. Member States have a discretion, subject to fiscal neutrality, to fix the conditions for recognition. An entity that does not meet those national conditions (here, no partnership with an educational establishment) is not a recognised organisation with similar objects, and neither the public interest nature of the activity nor a trade register authorisation under CAEN code 8559 changes that. The first question therefore did not need answering. Private tutoring, homework club and after-school operators cannot rely on the education exemption merely because their activity looks educational or their company registration mentions education.

C-228/20 I (VAT exemption for hospital services)

Judgment · 7 April 2022 · Germany

Exemption for private hospitals and recognition under national health insurance rules

Member States may require private hospitals to be duly recognised, that requirement applying to all establishments named in Article 132(1)(b), but discretion is bounded by fiscal neutrality. Legislation tying recognition to needs-based hospital planning or contract discretion is precluded where it treats comparable private hospitals supplying similar services under comparable social conditions differently. Comparability may be assessed by reference to regulatory conditions and performance and cost-efficiency indicators applicable to public hospitals, the calculation of fixed-rate daily fees, and coverage leaving patients bearing similar costs. Private hospitals and clinics in Member States where exemption depends on admission to a capacity-based public planning system or on discretionary contracts with sickness funds can challenge refusals grounded solely in the absence of demonstrated need.

C-513/20 Termas Sulfurosas de Alcafache

Judgment · 13 January 2022 · Portugal

Exemption of activities closely related to medical care, thermal registration fees

The fee can be exempt, but only where the file records the user's state of health, the planned and prescribed care and how it is to be administered, and must be consulted in order to deliver the care and achieve its therapeutic objectives. If the payment merely buys the right to purchase prescribed care, or the file's content is not essential to the care, there is no close link, even though the treatments cannot be had without paying. The establishment must also meet the Article 132(1)(b) status and social conditions test. Relevant to spa and thermal establishments, private clinics and other non-public providers charging administrative, registration or file-opening fees alongside exempt treatment.

C-373/19 Dubrovin & Tröger - Aquatics

Judgment · 21 October 2021 · Germany

Swimming tuition and the education exemption

The concept of school or university education does not cover swimming tuition provided by a swimming school. Although such tuition is important and in the general interest, it is specialised tuition given occasionally and does not involve the transfer, furthering and development of knowledge and skills across a wide and diversified set of subjects that characterises an integrated education system. The general interest in the subject matter is irrelevant. The remaining questions on recognised bodies and legal form were not answered. Confirms the A & G Fahrschul-Akademie line and extends it beyond driving and sailing schools.

C-4/18 Winterhoff and Eisenbeis

Judgment · 16 October 2019 · Germany

Postal exemption for private operators formally serving court documents

Such licence holders are universal service providers and their formal service of documents is exempt under Article 132(1)(a). Article 3(4) sets only a minimum, so other postal services may form part of the universal service. What matters is that the obligations flow from legislation rather than individual negotiation, that fees are regulated and the service is available throughout the territory at affordable prices. National classification of the service, and any failure to notify the Commission under Article 4(2), cannot displace the exemption. Confirms that the exemption follows the special legal regime imposed on the operator, not the operator's public ownership, and not the Member State's own labelling of the universal service. Relevant to postal and legal process service providers, and to advisers handling historic assessments where exemption was refused on national law grounds.

C-449/17 A & G Fahrschul-Akademie

Judgment · 14 March 2019 · Germany

Driving school tuition and the education exemption

The concept does not cover motor vehicle driving tuition provided by a driving school for category B and C1 licences. Although the exemptions must not be read so narrowly as to lose their effect, the concept refers to an integrated system transferring knowledge and skills across a wide and diversified set of subjects, with progression and specialisation. Driving tuition, however much practical and theoretical content it has, remains specialised tuition. The remaining questions were not answered. Driving schools across the EU must treat tuition as taxable, whatever their national accreditation and whether they trade as companies or sole traders.

C-326/15 DNB Banka

Judgment · 21 September 2017 · Latvia

Cost sharing exemption confined to public interest activities

The exemption applies only to independent groups whose members carry on activities in the public interest listed in Article 132. Services to members active in financial services, exempt under Article 135 but not in the public interest, fall outside it. The remaining questions therefore need no answer. Crucially, the authorities cannot rely on the Directive against taxpayers. Closed periods cannot be reopened, and for open periods this reading cannot be invoked to withdraw the exemption from groups of credit institutions. Banks, insurers and other financial services groups can no longer build cost sharing structures on Article 132(1)(f), whether domestic or cross-border.

C-605/15 Aviva

Judgment · 21 September 2017 · Poland

Cost sharing groups confined to public interest activities

The exemption in Article 132(1)(f) covers only independent groups of persons whose members carry on an activity in the public interest referred to in Article 132. Insurance is not such an activity, so services supplied by a grouping of insurers are not exempt. The Court added that national authorities cannot reopen definitively closed periods, cannot rely on the Directive directly against taxpayers for open periods, and that national law must be interpreted consistently with legal certainty and not contra legem. Cost sharing structures in insurance, reinsurance and, by the same logic, other Article 135 financial sectors lose access to the exemption.

C-412/15 TMD

Judgment · 5 October 2016 · Germany

Scope of the exemption for supplies of human blood, industrial plasma

Plasma is a component of human blood and its supply is exempt under Article 132(1)(d) where the plasma is used directly for healthcare or therapeutic purposes. So-called industrial plasma, intended for incorporation into industrial production such as the manufacture of medicinal products, does not contribute directly to activities in the public interest and is therefore taxable. The theoretical possibility of direct therapeutic use is irrelevant. Actual intended use governs. For blood donor centres, plasma collectors and fractionation suppliers the output divides by intended use.

C-334/14 De Fruytier

Judgment · 2 July 2015 · Belgium

Medical exemption for self-employed transport of organs and samples

Neither of the two provisions covers that transport. The transport is not itself medical care, and Article 13(A)(1)(c) contains no closely related activities limb. Even if the transport were an indispensable stage in the supply of hospital or medical care, a matter for the national court, the exemption fails on the status condition: a self-employed transporter is not a body governed by public law, hospital, centre for treatment or diagnosis, or an establishment of a similar nature. Fiscal neutrality cannot widen the exemption. Confirms that the medical exemption has a two limb test and that outsourced logistics providers fail the status limb regardless of how closely their services support therapeutic outcomes.

C-144/00 Hoffmann

Judgment · 3 April 2003 · Germany

Cultural exemption for individual performers

Following Gregg, the Court held that "other recognised cultural bodies" does not exclude soloists performing individually. A performer supplying services by his own means, whatever legal form, is an individualised entity carrying on a cultural activity, and fiscal neutrality requires equal treatment with cultural groups. Member States may restrict the exemption only through the conditions in Article 13A(2), notably absence of a systematic profit-making aim, and must then apply them identically to soloists and groups. The heading of Article 13A imposes no restriction of itself. Relevant to promoters, venues and agents engaging individual performers, and to any adviser meeting national cultural exemptions drafted around theatres, orchestras, choirs and similar institutions.

Related topics

Education and vocational training · Public postal services · Provision of medical care in exercise of medical and paramedical professions · Hospital and medical care · Closely related activities · Supply of services by independent groups of persons · Taxable person · VAT group