EC v UK
EC v UK
The case concerned infraction proceedings in relation to the UK legislation’s compatibility with Article 13A(1)(c) of EC Council Directive 77/388 (the “Sixth Directive”, the predecessor to PVD Article 132(1) (c)). The UK legislation exempted supplies of goods when supplied “in connection with” the supply of services by members of the medical and paramedical professions, for instance in relation to the supply of corrective spectacles by approved opticians after they had carried out eyesight tests. The Commission considered the UK legislation to be in breach, as the exemption in c) did not extend to goods (other than the minor supply of goods which were indissociable from the service provided).
The European Court rejected the UK’s argument that the parallel between exemption b) (which did cover goods) and exemption c) meant goods supplied in connection with hospital care under b) were to be treated the same way as goods supplied in connection with medical care under c). The Court contrasted b) which “encompass[ed] a whole range of medical care normally provided on a non-profit-making basis in establishments pursuing social purposes such as the protection of human health” with c) where “the services involved are provided outside hospitals and similar establishments and within the framework of a confidential relationship between the patient and the person providing the care, a relationship which is normally established in the consulting room of that person”. The Court considered (at [33] and [34]) that:
“…In those circumstances, apart from minor provisions of goods which are strictly necessary at the time when the care is provided, the supply of medicines and other goods, such as corrective spectacles provided by a doctor or by other authorised persons, is physically and economically dissociable from the provision of the service.
It follows that the exemption from tax of goods supplied in connection with the medical care referred to in indent (c) cannot be justified by indent (b) as the United Kingdom maintains.”
- Heading
- Introduction
- law
- EC v UK
- Klinikum
- Spectrum’s case on EC v UK and Klinikum
- FTT Decision
- Grounds of appeal
- Ground 1 – the FTT erred in taking the issues in the wrong order
- Ground 2 – the EC v UK error
- FTT’s treatment of EC v UK and Klinikum
- Spectrum’s submissions
- Discussion
- FTT misunderstood Spectrum’s concession/ oversimplified Spectrum’s case?
- Ground 3 – Error of contractual approach
- Ground 4 Edwards v Bairstow
- Conclusions
![UT/2023/000009 - [2024] UKUT 00162 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png)