- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-380/24: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cataluña (Spain) lodged on 28 May 2024 – Educat Serveis auxiliars SCCL v Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Cataluña (TEARC)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CN0380
62024CN0380
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
EN
C series
—
C/2024/5783
7.10.2024
(Case C-380/24)
(C/2024/5783)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Educat Serveis auxiliars SCCL
Respondent: Tribunal Económico Administrativo Regional de Cataluña (TEARC)
Questions referred
1.Is a national rule – Article 20(1)(6) of the VAT Law – which contains the stipulation that it relates to services provided directly and exclusively to the exempt activity (‘(a) such services are used directly and exclusively in the course of that activity and are necessary in order to carry it out;’) contrary to the meaning and purpose intended by the EU legislature with the exemption contained in Article 132(1)(f) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, (1) where that stipulation is interpreted such that a service – cleaning in the area of education – [is not considered to be] exclusive to that exempt sector, even though it is singular, technical and complex in its organisation – calling for the continuous cleaning and disinfection of facilities attended and occupied by children over long periods of time – and nature, as well as absolutely necessary?
2.Is an interpretation of Article 20(1)(6) of the VAT Law contrary to the meaning and purpose intended by the EU legislature with the exemption contained in Article 132(1)(f) of Directive 2006/112/EC where, in order to refuse the exemption in accordance with EU limits, non-exclusivity in the provision of the service to the activity is equated with causing distortion of competition, thereby combining national and EU limits in order to refuse it? Please clarify whether the limit of ‘not distorting competition’ implies refusing the exemption, if it is not disputed by the parties, whatever the extent of its effect may be ([judgment of 20 November 2003, Taksatorringen, C-8/01, EU:C:2003:621], paragraph 48), on the basis that any exemption is a break with the general principle – acknowledged by the Court of Justice – of liability to tax.
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax – OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5783/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—
* * *
Language of the case: Spanish.