C-8/01

TAKSATORRINGEN

of his activities will mean that when he may affect different operators in different purchases goods or services from third ways, some being able to benefit fully from parties he will have to pay VAT without them, and others, for various reasons, being being able to recover it. unable to do so to the same extent.

8. To mention these difficulties is not, however, to dismiss exceptions to the general scope of the tax under the guise of 11. This is precisely the situation that has a form of purism which cannot replace the arisen in the case relating to the exemptions role of the political authorities in structur- specified in Article 13A(1)(f) and 13B(a) of ing the taxation system. the Sixth Directive brought by Assurandør- Societetet (Association of Insurance Com- panies), acting on behalf of Taksatorringen (hereinafter 'Taksatorringen'), before the Østre Landsret (Eastern Regional Court) (Denmark), against Skattenministeriet (The Ministry of Fiscal Affairs). 9. Specific transactions may be exempted from VAT and certain categories of persons may be declared not to be taxable in order to address perfectly understandable con- cerns, particularly where these relate to the end cost payable by customers, for example in the field of medical and hospital services. 12. Taksatorringen is an association estab- lished by small and medium-sized insurance companies authorised to underwrite motor- vehicle insurance policies in Denmark. The association has approximately 35 10. However understandable and justifi- members. able they may be, it is not surprising that the exemptions specified by the Commu- nity legislature in the Sixth Council Direc- tive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1997 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Com- mon system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment 2(hereinafter the 'Sixth 13. The purpose of the association is to Directive') have none the less been subject assess damage caused to motor vehicles in to challenge. This applies particularly to Denmark on behalf of its member com- the question of their application, as they panies, its members being required to allow Taksatorringen to assess damage to motor vehicles insured with them throughout 2 — OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1. Denmark.

14. The expenses involved in Taksator- expert must be contacted so that possible ringen's activity are apportioned among amendments to the prepared assessment its members in such a way that an individ- report can be discussed. ual member's payment for services pro- vided by the association corresponds exactly to that member's share of the joint expenses. 18. If the expenses involved in repairing the damage to the vehicle are below DKK 20 000, the insurance company pays the amount calculated in the expert's report 15. Members may terminate their member- directly to the workshop immediately after ship of Taksatorringen by giving six the date on which the repair work is months' notice. completed. The expert's report functions as an invoice for the work in question. Should the costs involved in repairing the damage exceed DKK 20 000, the workshop draws up an invoice, to be approved by the 16. Where a policy holder's vehicle has expert, and the invoice is then sent to the been damaged and is to be repaired at the insurance company, which arranges pay- expense of a company affiliated to Taksa- ment to the workshop. torringen, the policy holder draws up a damage declaration which, along with the damaged vehicle, is brought to a car-repair workshop of the policy holder's own choice. The workshop examines the dam- 19. In the case of a 'total write-off', that is aged vehicle and, on conclusion of the to say, damage in respect of which the examination, requests that the vehicle be repair costs exceed 75% of the commercial inspected by an assessor (hereinafter 'the value of the vehicle, the expert agrees on expert') from one of Taksatorringen's local cash compensation with the policy holder assessment centres. corresponding to the vehicle's replacement value. The expert prepares a compensation report, on the basis of which the insurance company arranges payment of the agreed compensation to the policy holder. The 17. The expert estimates the damage to the expert then invites tenders for the vehicle vehicle after consultation with the work- wreck and arranges for its disposal. The shop. He prepares a detailed assessment expert sends the proceeds to the insurance report which contains a description of the company, and the case can then be con- work and information on spare parts, cluded for Taksatorringen's purposes. wages and paintwork, together with the total expenses involved in repairing the damage. This must be repaired in com- pliance with the expert's report. Should the workshop become aware, while carrying 20. When assessing damage caused to out the repair work, of discrepancies vehicles that have been in an accident, between the information contained in the experts employed by Taksatorringen use a expert's report and the actual damage, the computer-based system which, by agree-

'(1) Must the provisions of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the 23. Taksatorringen thereupon reapplied for Member States relating to turnover VAT exemption, basing its application on taxes — Common system of value Paragraph 13(1).20 of the national law on added tax: uniform basis of assessment, VAT, which implements the Sixth Direc- and in particular the provision in tive. This provides that there is to be a VAT Article 13B(a) thereof, be interpreted exemption for: as meaning that assessment services which an undertaking provides for its members are to be regarded as being covered by the term "insurance trans- actions", within the meaning of that 'services supplied by independent groups of provision, or by the term "related persons who carry on activities which are services performed by insurance exempt from or not subject to value added brokers and insurance agents"?

I - 13717

OPINION OF MR MISCHO — CASE C-8/01

(2) Must Article 13A(1)(f) of the Sixth companies themselves and are thus VAT Directive be interpreted as mean- exempt from VAT have any bearing ing that exemption from VAT must be on the answers to Questions 1 and 2?' granted for services of the type which an undertaking — which otherwise meets the conditions set out in that provision for VAT exemption — pro- vides for its members, in the case where it cannot be demonstrated that the 25. The reference was received at the Court exemption will produce actual or Registry on 10 January 2001 and was imminent distortion of competition allocated case number C-8/01. Written but where there is merely a possibility observations were lodged by the two that this might happen? parties to the main action, and by the United Kingdom Government and the Commission.

(f) services supplied by independent questions, as it asks the Court to consider groups of persons whose activities are Taksatorringen's activities in relation to exempt from or are not subject to value two concepts appearing in Article 13B(a) of added tax, for the purpose of rendering the Sixth Directive, namely those of 'insur- their members the services directly ance transactions' and 'related services necessary for the exercise of their performed by insurance brokers and insur- activity, where these groups merely ance agents'. claim from their members exact reim- bursement of their share of the joint expenses, provided that such exemp- tion is not likely to produce distortion of competition.' 30. I shall start by attempting to define the concept of insurance transactions, and note immediately that, as was pointed out by the Court in the CPP case, 3 which Taksator- 28. Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive ringen cites and which also related to the provides that: exemption afforded to insurance trans- actions, the Sixth Directive does not define it in any way.

'Without prejudice to other Community provisions, Member States shall exempt the following under conditions which they shall lay down for the purpose of ensuring the correct and straightforward application 31. In its judgment in the CPP case, the of the exemptions and of preventing any Court held that 'the essentials of an insur- possible evasion, avoidance or abuse: ance transaction are, as generally under- stood, that the insurer undertakes, in return for prior payment of a premium, to provide the insured, in the event of materialisation of the risk covered, with the service agreed (a) insurance and reinsurance transactions, when the contract was concluded' including related services performed by (paragraph 17). insurance brokers and insurance agents'.

the damage suffered by an insured party, 36. Taksatorringen relies on the CPP judg- without which compensation cannot be ment for another reason. The Court there paid, cannot be separated from the carrying observed that 'a taxable person, not being on of insurance activities and falls to be an insurer, who, in the context of a block treated as an insurance transaction. policy of which he is the holder, procures for his customers, who are the insured, insurance cover from an insurer who assumes the risk covered performs an insurance transaction within the meaning of [Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive]' 33. At the very least, Taksatorringen's (paragraph 25). It follows that the fact that activities should be considered to be ser- Taksatorringen is not itself an insurance vices ancillary to the covering of a risk. As company does not prevent services pro- such, and as the Court held at paragraph 30 vided by it from being exempted. of the CPP judgment, and confirmed in its judgment in Commission v France, 4they should be subject to the same fiscal regime as that which applies to the covering of a risk, in other words, they should benefit from the exemption set out in Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive. 37. Furthermore, a similar approach was followed in the SD C case 5 in relation to the exemptions laid down under points 3 and 5 of Article 13B(d) of the Sixth Directive, namely transactions, including negoti- ations, concerning deposit and current 34. Taksatorringen further argues in sup- accounts, payments, transfers, debts, port of its position that the logic underlying cheques and other negotiable instruments the exemption for insurance transactions and transactions in shares. extends to providing an exemption for the services which it provides. As the Court held in the CPP case, the underlying intent is that the end customer, who already has to bear the cost of the special tax on insurance policies that may be levied by Member States, should not be penalised. 38. In that case, the Court held that the exemption provided for under these provi- sions 'is not subject to the condition that the transactions be effected by a certain type of institution, by a certain type of legal person or wholly or partly by certain 35. Were the services provided by Taksa- e l e c t r o n i c m e a n s or m a n u a l l y ' torringen to be subject to VAT, this would (paragraph 38), and that 'the exemption... have a cost implication which, in one way is not subject to the condition that the or another, would result in the cost of service be provided by an institution which insurance being increased. has a legal relationship with the end

42. This analysis of the case-law is disputed in the other observations submitted to the Court. 40. In that judgment, the Court held 'that the identity of the person supplied with the service is relevant for the purposes of the definition of the type of services covered by Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive and that an insurance transaction necessarily 43. These are unanimously of the opinion implies the existence of a contractual that, as Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive relationship between the provider of the represents an exception to the principle that insurance service and the person whose tax is assessed on the provision of services, risks are covered by the insurance, namely it should not be broadly construed. The the insured' (paragraph 41). This led it to Commission points out in this regard that conclude that 'a commitment assumed by in the case of D. 7 the Court held that the an insurance company to carry out, in exemption under Article 13A(1)(c) of the return for remuneration at market rates, Sixth Directive which relates to the provi- the business activities of another insurance sion of medical and paramedical services company, which is its 100% subsidiary and does not extend to medical services which which would continue to conclude insur- do not consist in providing medical care

6 — Case C-240/99 Skandia [2001] ECR I-1951. 7 — Case C-384/98 D. v W. [2000] ECR I-6795.

I - 13721

OPINION OF MR MISCHO — CASE C-8/01

45. In their view, Taksatorringen is merely a provider of services to which insurance companies subcontract the task of assessing damage in respect of which compensation may fall to be paid. While this is an essential part of the underwriting oper- ation, it is none the less distinct from it. 49. That article provided for a transitional exemption, terminated by Eighteenth Council Directive 89/465/EEC of 18 July 1989 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Abolition of certain derogations 46. Even if the services which Taksator- provided for in Article 28(3) of the Sixth ringen provides were to be considered to be Directive, 77/388, 8 relating to the 'services services related to insurance transactions, of experts in connection with insurance Taksatorringen would still require to be an claim assessments'. insurance broker or agent in order for the exemption to apply. This is also disputed, as will be seen below. 8 — OJ 1989 L 226, p. 21.

I - 13722

TAKSATORRINGEN

50. If these transactions were insurance 54. The concept of an insurance trans- transactions within the meaning of action is construed in the same way in Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive, it both judgments. It requires that there be in would not have been necessary to have a place an undertaking given by the party special provision exempting them. claiming the exemption in favour of the insured.

55. In the CPP case, the Court held that 51. As to which of the opposing sub- 'CPP is the holder of a block insurance missions should be preferred, I am of the policy under which its customers are the view that the argument that Article 13B(a) insured. It procures for those customers, for of the Sixth Directive should be interpreted payment, in its own name and on its own narrowly because it provides for an excep- account... insurance cover by having tion to the general application of VAT to recourse to an insurer' (paragraph 21). services provided for consideration (see Skandia, at paragraph 32) is not conclusive.

58. The first should be considered to be an 62. Furthermore, Taksatorringen's argu- insurance transaction, as the service pro- ment that, unlike Skandia, it does not vider procures insurance for consumers charge for its services at market rates, is seeking cover for certain risks. The second without merit. cannot be an insurance transaction, because it involves a provider who supplies to an insurer a service which facilitates the carrying out of the latter's activities while remaining entirely outside the actual contract of insurance itself. 63. It is true that this point is referred to in the operative part of the Skandia judgment, but that is only because the Court, follow- ing its settled practice, intended to provide an interpretation of Community law in the precise factual and legal context of the 59. If one applies this distinction to Tak- question referred by the national court for a satorringen, it is clear that its activities bear preliminary ruling. no resemblance to those of CPP, but are very similar to those of Skandia.

64. The inclusion of this reference in no way means that the actual way in which Skandia was remunerated for its services 60. It has no legal relationship with persons had any bearing on the Court's analysis, insured by the companies to which it and indeed there is no stage at which a provides services in order to enable them reading of the judgment would suggest that efficiently to meet the obligations they this was the case. alone have undertaken in relation to the insured persons who make up their cus- tomers.

68. The terms of the SDC judgment, which is concerned with establishing the scope of 71. I would again stress that Taksator- the e x e m p t i o n laid d o w n u n d e r ringen does not provide its services to Article 13B(d) of the Sixth Directive, insured parties but to insurance companies. admittedly appear less strict than the CPP This is quite different from the situation and Skandia judgments, which relate to the addressed in the CPP judgment, and means exemption under Article 13B(a) of the that its services cannot be considered to be Directive. However, this does not justify ancillary to the services which those com- calling into question the approach taken by panies provide to the parties whom they the CPP and Skandia judgments, as there is insure. no question of following the same reason- ing in relation to a provision exempting 'insurance transactions' as in relation to a provision exempting 'transactions concern- ing transfers', the wording of which itself suggests the possibility of an interpretation allowing an exemption for transactions the only purpose of which is to effect a transfer. 72. It must therefore be held that the case-law developed by the Court in relation to the concept of an insurance transaction within the meaning of Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive means that the services provided by Taksatorringen to its members 69. Furthermore, in the SDC judgment the cannot come within the definition of insur- Court noted that the text of Article 13B(d) ance transactions and so be entitled to of the Sixth Directive was 'sufficiently exemption from VAT. It is unnecessary to broad to include services provided by rely on the arguments put forward a operators other than banks to persons other contrario by the United Kingdom Govern- than their end customers' (paragraph 56). ment and the Commission in that regard.

(c) activities of persons other than those referred to in (a) and (b) who, acting on behalf of such persons, among other things carry out introductory work, 76. Article 2(1) of Directive 77/92 states introduce insurance contracts or collect that: premiums, provided that no insurance commitments towards or on the part of the public are given as part of these 9 —OJ 1977 L 26, p. 14. operations.' I - 13726

TAKSATORRINGEN

77. Taksatorringen claims that the services 80. According to the Danish Government, which it provides to insurance companies Taksatorringen cannot claim to be a broker are precisely those contemplated by within the meaning of Article 2(1)(a) of Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 77/92 when it Directive 77/92, as even though this provi- refers to assisting in the administration and sion contemplates that a broker will assist performance of insurance contracts, in in the performance of an insurance contract particular in the event of a claim. It follows in the event of a claim, it is of the nature of that Taksatorringen should be treated as an such an entity that its activities comprise insurance broker or agent for the purposes the bringing together of insurance com- of both Directive 77/92 and the Sixth panies and persons seeking insurance. Tak- Directive. Nothing suggests that it was satorringen does not do this in any way. Its intended that definitions set out in the task is solely to provide insurance com- former should not apply to the latter. panies with its opinion on the cost of repairing damage suffered by a vehicle.

Directive 77/92, as the use in that provision insurance, and unless it has a direct rela- of the expressions 'in the name of' and 'on tionship with persons insured. behalf of' means that the intermediary must be authorised to bind the insurance com- pany in arrangements entered into with the insured party. Without this authority, assistance provided in the administration or performance of an insurance contract would simply be provided in the capacity of subcontractor. 85. The Commission also disputes Taksa- torringen's claim that it carries on activities which mean that it should be treated as an insurance broker or agent for the purposes of Article 2(1) of Directive 77/92. It points out in addition that Article 13B(a) of the 83. Lastly, the Danish Government rejects Sixth Directive should be narrowly inter- Taksatorringen's argument based on the preted, referring to the judgment in Com- exemption from VAT that exists in the mission v Germany, 12 in which the Court United Kingdom for assessors giving held that the exemption for public postal opinions relating to compensation for services did not apply to services provided damage caused to vehicles on the basis that to them by other undertakings. they are providing services as insurance agents. It points out that it is only when these assessors have been appointed as the insurance company's agents for the purpose of handling claims for compensation that this exemption is available; this is fully compatible with its submissions relating to the concept of an insurance intermediary. 86. I am of the opinion that the weight of these arguments against Taksatorringen's submissions is sufficient to dispose of the matter. Even if Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive is not particularly well drafted, in that it distinguishes between insurance brokers and insurance agents, whereas a 84. The United Kingdom Government puts broker is truly an insurance agent in that forward a similar argument. It observes his task is to act on behalf of a person that even if Taksatorringen were to carry seeking insurance in finding an insurance on certain of the activities of an insurance company that will offer cover exactly broker or agent, that does not mean that it suited to his needs, it remains clear that is an insurance broker or agent for the this provision applies only to services pro- purposes of Directive 77/92 or the Sixth vided by those professionals who have a Directive unless at the same time it carries relationship with both the insurance com- on those activities which distinguish this pany and persons seeking insurance. type of undertaking from other categories, that is to say, the bringing together of insurance companies and persons seeking 12 — Case 107/84 [1985] ECR 2655.

90. Admittedly, the activities set out in Article 2(1)(a) of Directive 77/92, which under paragraph 2 of that article cor- respond to those of an insurance broker, include those of assisting in the adminis- tration and performance of insurance contracts, particularly in the event of a claim, but it is stated clearly that this 92. My conclusion on the first question assistance is to be provided 'where appro- referred by the national court is therefore priate' in conjunction with the activities that the assessments carried out by Taksa- which are distinctive of the carrying on of torringen on behalf of its members cannot the business of an insurance broker, namely be exempted from VAT by virtue of the bringing together of insurers and per- Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive.

I - 13729

OPINION OF MR MISCHO — CASE C-8/01

The second, third and fourth questions 96. The issues may therefore be focused on the question of whether the Community legislature had sought to restrict the exemp- tion to groups whose activities not only do not in fact produce distortion of compe- tition, but also whose activities by their nature are never likely to produce distor- tion. 93. This leads to the interpretation to be given to Article 13A(1)(f) of the Sixth Directive, which is the subject of the second, third and fourth questions referred by the Østre Landsret. These may conveni- ently be examined together. 97. The Commission argues forcefully for the latter interpretation. It submits in this regard that:

102. Lastly, Taksatorringen argues that the 100. That is why, in Taksatorringen's view, existence of a risk of distortion of compe- it is the duty of an authority which tition was taken into account in providing proposes to refuse an exemption sought an exception to the rules relating to exemp- by a group which otherwise meets all the tion under Article 13A(1)(f) of the Sixth requirements of this provision to establish Directive, and that the exception should that there is a real and well-founded therefore be narrowly construed. probability that the grant of the exemption would distort competition.

I - 13731

OPINION OF MR MISCHO — CASE C-8/01

I - 13732

TAKSATORRINGEN

110. First, its scope was widened, as it is 114. As regards the interests of consumers, not restricted to independent groups carry- I would point out that the legislature ing on medical or paramedical activities. wished to act in such a way that insurance contracts would not be unduly costly. With this in mind, it exempted not only 'insur- ance transactions' but also services pro- vided by brokers and agents, whose inter- vention is after all not essential. There would be an immediate benefit to con- sumers if this approach were applied to the 111. Secondly, the scope of the provision assessment of damage. was reduced, as the statement that exemp- tion should not be granted where it was 'likely to produce distortion of compe- tition' was added.

I - 13733

OPINION OF MR MISCHO — CASE C-8/01

117. In my opinion, the proper starting neously by large undertakings, capable of point is to consider the reason why the offering their services through the use of exemption under Article 13A(1)(f) of the their internal resources alone, and other, Sixth Directive was introduced and the smaller, undertakings, obliged to call upon market conditions created by the presence external assistance in order to offer the of an entity which provides services to its same services. members while only claiming exact reim- bursement of its share of the joint expenses.

122. This means that the group must be entirely transparent and that, from an economic point of view, it must not have the characteristics of an independent oper- ator seeking to create a customer base in 119. It was thought that the fiscal treat- order to generate profits. ment of a service made available to a provider in such a group should, provided certain conditions were met, be the same as that of a transaction carried out using internal resources. 123. The provisions relating to the absence of distortion of competition appear to me to have been added only in order to avoid a situation arising in which the arrangements intended to benefit groups, which aim to 120. From one point of view, and however create a level playing field as far as con- paradoxical this may appear, the purpose ditions of competition among operators of this exemption is to unify conditions of providing exempted services are concerned, competition in a market covered simulta- do not create distortion at another level, I - 13734

TAKSATORRINGEN

namely that of the market for services 128. Plainly, this is a most unusual market which these providers themselves require. in the context of an ideal conceptualisation of the notion of competition. If one accepts a situation in which certain operators, namely groups, carry on business without any view of gain, what is the place of an independent operator seeking to generate 124. In other words, a remedy was pro- profits? vided against certain inequalities in the area of competition that might arise by reason of undertakings being of different sizes, while at the same time care was taken to ensure that this did not give rise to symptoms whose result might be that the 129. As mentioned above, such an operator remedy was worse than the disease. can hope to enter the market and to remain there only if he is able to offer services at a lower price than groups that are prohibited from making a profit.

I - 13735

OPINION OF MR MISCHO — CASE C-8/01

132. In my view, it is in this way that the the Commission have little weight, and condition requiring the absence of a risk of some are even untenable. There is thus no distortion of competition laid down under reason why exemption should be refused Article 13A(1)(f) of the Sixth Directive because an assessment of the risk of should be understood. I suggest that this distortion would impose a heavy burden analysis reflects, mutatis mutandis, the on the authorities, a heavy burden which it provisions of Article 81 EC, and to which would be easier to discharge by allowing Taksatorringen rightly refers. them to invoke any risks, however hypo- thetical, of distortion. If the Commission can carry out such assessments when con- sidering the application of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC, there is no obvious reason why national authorities should not be able to 133. Exemption should not be refused undertake the same type of assessments. because of a hypothetical possibility that there may be a situation in which, by exempting a group while at the same time requiring an independent operator to pay tax, distortion of competition would be likely to arise.

137. Nor is it clear why, on the pretext that 134. The proper approach is to consider, exemptions should be strictly interpreted, on the basis of the actual circumstances of limitations on the exemptions should, con- the case, whether an exemption given to versely, be particularly widely construed. one party and the imposition of liability to This loses sight of the point that the tax on another is the determining cause of legislature created an exemption because independent operators being excluded from it considered it appropriate to do so, while the market. at the same time taking care to ensure that its purpose would not be distorted. This does not mean that it should be strictly construed.

itself, exclude independent operators from exemption under Article 13A(1)(f) of the carrying on business on the market in Sixth Directive should not be refused on the which the group is operating, it is unnecess- grounds that it might produce distortion of ary to answer the national court's third competition unless it appears with at least a question separately. high degree of probability that the granting of an exemption would of itself exclude independent operators from carrying on business in the market in which the group is operating. The exemption may be granted on a merely temporary basis. 139. As regards the national court's fourth question, the answer to it is now clear. If national legislation permits the granting of an exemption that is limited in time, there is no reason to suppose that the Sixth Directive prevents such a facility being made use of. The effectiveness of a group which can, at a given time, exclude poten- tial competitors for reasons that have nothing to do with their being treated The fifth question differently for fiscal purposes may very well be reduced over time, with the result that the group enjoys a benefit from a situation which is entirely due to an exemption granted to it. Such an exemption would then be the sole cause of distortion 142. It remains to consider the fifth ques- of competition, to which it would then be tion, in which the Østre Landsret asks necessary to put an end. whether the fact that the largest insurance companies make use of assessors employed by them and do not have to account for VAT on the services provided by them internally has any bearing in the case in question. 140. Given that it is in principle easier to reconsider periodically whether an exemp- tion granted for a limited period should be renewed than to revoke a decision to exempt that is not accompanied by a temporal limitation, in the absence of any prohibition in the Directive against this method of proceeding, I see nothing to 143. Subject to what has been stated above prevent the grant of an exemption that is in relation to the second question, namely limited as to time. the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n to be given t o Article 13A(1)(f) of the Sixth Directive, this question should be answered in the negative. In reply to a similar question asked in the SDC case, the Court held that 141. My opinion on the second, third and the difference between operators which fourth questions is therefore that the effect transactions with their own resources

16 — It is not, therefore, a mere exemption. Properly speaking, The principle of fiscal neutrality, which is there is a tax exemption only when there is an event previously chargeable, that is, subject to tax. The concept at the basis of VAT, is not affected by the of exemption presupposes an initial obligation to pay tax for which the legislature grants, for various reasons, a exercise of that option. In fact, the charge- dispensation from paying. It depends therefore on there able event for VAT, as affecting supply of being an express reference in the law to an exemption from the duty to pay the tax. Before examining whether a given services, is that there should be two inde- transaction meets the requirements for benefiting from exemption, it is necessary to ascertain that it falls within pendent taxable persons, in a legal relation- the field of application of the tax.

I - 13738

TAKSATORRINGEN

Conclusion

145. In view of all the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court of Justice should reply as follows to the questions referred to it by the Østre Landsret:

— The provisions of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, and in particular Article 13B(a) thereof, should be interpreted as meaning that assessments carried out by an undertaking on behalf of its members are not insurance transactions within the meaning of that provision and are also not related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents.