Alinea 295 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 7 november 2003

"(1) There was no purpose in the suggested qualification of the phrase 'services performed by insurance brokers'. The language had already defined the nature of the services to be supplied; they were to be 'related to' insurance transactions. It was only in the context of wether a provider was an insurance broker or agent for the purposes of the exemption that there might have to be an inquiry as to whether what he did was the sort of thing normally performed by insurance brokers or agents. In the instant case it was accepted that C plc. were insurance agents so the inquiry did not arise. Applying the general principle of interpretation of Community legislative instruments, namely that exceptions to a general rule were to be construed strictly, the words 'related services' one could say that if a service was only remotely or incidentally connected with an insurance transaction it was not 'related to' it; there had to be a close nexus between the service and the insurance transaction concerned. It could not be said of the services in the instant case that they were only incidental to insurance transactions. Ensuring that a policy complied with regulations was intimately related to it; the very nature of the individual policy was under scrunity. (...). Accordingly, the services provided by C plc were within the exemption provided by art 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive. (...).

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/cb661034fb3be644f92ee6f9d5415b4a2e913d57daa598970ce888aa4d5baf2b | shasum -a 256