Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Werner Haderer v Finanzamt Wilmersdorf (C-445/05)
Judgment
Question referred for a preliminary ru…
30

Werner Haderer v Finanzamt Wilmersdorf (C-445/05)

Judgment of 14 Jun 2007law://eu/cjeu/2005/c-445-05/para_30@2026-11-10

30The term privately enables the services supplied by the bodies mentioned in Article 13A(1)(i) of the Sixth Directive to be distinguished from those referred to in Article 13A(1)(j), which are provided by teachers on their own account and at their own risk.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Third Chamber
Case: C-445/05 · ECLI:EU:C:2007:344
Decided: 14 Jun 2007
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)
Applicant: Werner Haderer
Defendant: Finanzamt Wilmersdorf
Rapporteur: A. Ó Caoimh
Advocate General: E. Sharpston
Bench: 5 judges
A. Rosas, J. Klučka, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, A. Ó Caoimh, P. Lindh
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62005CJ0445

Topics

Value added tax

History · 1 version

14 Jun 2007Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
Cited by 12: Finanzamt München Abteilung III v Dubrovin & Tröger GbR - Aquatics (C-373/19)2 provisions; Michael Winterhoff v Finanzamt Ulm and Jochen Eisenbeisvv Bundeszentralamt für Steuern (C-4/18, C-5/18); Finanzamt Steglitz v Ines Zimmermann (C-174/11)2 provisions; DTZ Zadelhoff vof v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-259/11)2 provisions; Finanzamt Leverkusen v Verigen Transplantation Service International AG (C-156/09)2 provisions; CopyGene A/S v Skatteministeriet (C-262/08)2 provisions; Future Health Technologies Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (C-86/09)2 provisions; Belgian State v Nathalie De Fruytier (C-237/09)2 provisions; Ingenieurbüro Eulitz GbR Thomas und Marion Eulitz v Finanzamt Dresden I (C-473/08); Don Bosco Onroerend Goed BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-461/08); The Queen, on the application of TNT Post UK Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (C-357/07); Navicon SA v Administración del Estado (C-97/06)2 provisions
Cites 13: Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment; Assurandør-Societetet et v Skatteministeriet (C-8/01); Card Protection Plan Ltd (CPP) v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (C-349/96); Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia (publ) (C-240/99); Kingscrest Associates Ltd and Montecello Ltd v Commissioners of Customs & Excise (C-498/03); Christoph-Dornier-Stiftung für Klinische Psychologie v Finanzamt Gießen (C-45/01); Diagnostiko & Therapeftiko Kentro Athinon-Ygeia AE v Ypourgos Oikonomikon (C-394/04, C-395/04); L.u.P. GmbH v Finanzamt Bochum-Mitte (C-106/05); Belgian State v Temco Europe SA (C-284/03); Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (C-287/00); The Institute of the Motor Industry v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (C-149/97); VDP Dental Laboratory NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-401/05); Jennifer Gregg and Mervyn Gregg v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (C-216/97)