Supply of services by independent groups of persons EU VAT case law

7 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2017 to 2026.

Search within this topic The cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

Article 132 of Directive 2006/112/EC Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest · 6 of these cases
Article 11 of Directive 2006/112/EC Taxable persons · 2 of these cases
Article 131 of Directive 2006/112/EC Exemptions · 1 of these cases
Article 134 of Directive 2006/112/EC Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest · 1 of these cases
Article 20 of Directive 2006/112/EC Intra-Community acquisition of goods · 1 of these cases
Article 13 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC Exemptions · 1 of these cases
Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC Origin and scope of right of deduction · 1 of these cases
Article 178 of Directive 2006/112/EC Rules governing exercise of the right of deduction · 1 of these cases

The 7 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.

C-379/24 Agrupació de Neteja Sanitaria

Judgment · 22 January 2026 · Spain

Cost sharing groups, cleaning services as "directly necessary" supplies

Article 132(1)(f) precludes an exclusivity requirement of that kind. It suffices that the services are directly necessary for the members' exempt activity. They need not be specific or an essential contribution, Article 134(a) not applying to Article 132(1)(f). General services such as cleaning can be directly necessary in the medical and education sectors. Nor may non-exclusivity be equated in principle with distortion of competition. Member States may adopt manageable rules under Article 131, but not redefine the exemption's content, and abuse cannot rest on an irrebuttable presumption. Spanish practice under Article 20(1)(6) of Law 37/1992, which conditions exemption on direct and exclusive use, cannot stand in so far as it excludes generic services.

C-77/19 Kaplan International Colleges UK

Judgment · 18 November 2020 · United Kingdom

Cost sharing exemption where the recipients form a VAT group

Services supplied by an independent group of persons to a VAT group are, for VAT purposes, supplied to the VAT group as a whole, including its representative member. The exemption therefore does not apply unless every member of the VAT group is also a member of the independent group. National provisions attributing the members' characteristics and status to the representative member are irrelevant, the exemption being an autonomous concept of EU law. The territorial scope questions were left unanswered. Membership of the two groupings must match exactly. Relevant to education, healthcare, insurance and financial services groups using shared services vehicles, particularly where a domestic VAT grouping was put in place separately.

C-400/18 Infohos

Judgment · 20 November 2019 · Belgium

Cost sharing groups supplying non-members as well as members

The exemption is not conditional on the group supplying services exclusively to its members. Supplies to members which meet the conditions of Article 13A(1)(f) remain exempt even where the group also serves non-members. Those supplies to non-members are simply taxable under Article 2. The distortion of competition proviso and the anti-abuse power in the introductory words do not allow a general, irrebuttable presumption limiting the exemption's scope. Cost sharing groups may operate as hybrid taxable persons.

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-616/15 Commission v Germany

Judgment · 21 September 2017 · Germany

Scope of the cost sharing exemption for independent groups of persons

The Court dismissed the Commission's principal complaint. Read in the context of Chapter 2 of Title IX, Article 132(1)(f) covers only IGPs whose members carry on activities in the public interest listed in Article 132, so groups serving insurance, reinsurance and financial services members exempt under Article 135 fall outside it. But Germany was wrong to confine the exemption to the health sector. Welfare, education, sport and culture also qualify. The distortion of competition proviso does not allow a general legislative exclusion of whole sectors. It must be assessed case by case. The judgment closes off the cost sharing exemption for banking, insurance and asset management groups, a reading later applied more widely, while confirming it must be available across the public interest exemptions.

C-274/15 Commission v Luxembourg

Judgment · 4 May 2017 · Luxembourg

Cost sharing groups, scope of the exemption and members' deduction rights

Luxembourg failed to fulfil its obligations on all three counts. The exemption covers only services directly necessary for members' exempt or non-taxable activities. Groups whose members also make taxable supplies may still use it, but only for that part. The group is a taxable person separate from its members. It, not they, may deduct, and deduction requires an invoice naming the claimant. Cost allocations by a member acting in his own name on the group's behalf are within the scope of VAT under the commissionaire fictions. Relevant to cost sharing structures in financial services, insurance, healthcare and the public sector, particularly in Luxembourg.