Opinion of Mr Advocate General Lenz delivered on 20 January 1994

1 Onginal language: German.

2 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1). last amended bv Council Directive 91/111/EEC of 14 December 1992 (OJ 1992 L 384, p. 47).

3 First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the harmonization of legislation of Member States concerning turnover taxes (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 14).

4 My emphasis.

5 My emphasis.

6 Judgment in Case 89/81 Staatssecretaris van Financien v Hong Kong Trade [1982] ECR 1277.

7 Paragraph 10 of the judgment, my emphasis.

8 This is a reference to Article 8 of the Second Directive (OJ, English Special Edition 1967, p. 16), which was the predecessor of Article 11 of the Sixth Directive.

9 Hong Kong Trade judgment, paragraph 11.

10 See the judgment in Case C-186/89 Van Tiem [1990] ECR I-4363, paragraph 17.

11 Whether and under precisely what circumstances other economic operations can exceptionally be equated to the operations described in the provision need not be examined exhaustively here, since such an equation can in any event be excluded in the present case: see below, paragraph 25 et seq.

12 Judgments in Case 154/80 Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Coöperatieve Aardappelenbewaarplaats [1981] ECR 445, paragraph 12; Case 102/86 Apple and Pear Development Council v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1988] ECR 1443, paragraph 11; and Case 230/87 Naturally Yours Cosmetics Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1988] ECR 6365, paragraph 11.

13 Apple and Pear Development Council judgment (see previous footnote), paragraph 15.

14 Coöperatieve Aardappelenbewaarplaats judgment (see foot-note 11), paragraph 13, and Naturally Yours Cosmetics judgment (see footnote 11), paragraph 16.

15 See paragraph 23 below.

16 Coöperatieve Aardappelenbewaarplaats judgment (see footnote 11), paragraphs 10 and 11; Naturally Yours Cosmetics judgment (see footnote 11), paragraph 16.

17 Paragraphs 7 to 13 above.

18 Paragraph 14 above, first indent.

19 It may be noted that in such circumstances the very existence of a service can be questioned. However, it appears from the wording and context of the questions referred that what the national court is concerned witli is the characteristic defined bv the words for consideration in Article 2 of the Sixth Directive.

20 Sec footnote 12 above and the text referred to there.

21 See paragraph 14 above, third indent.

22 For example, the average length of stay of individual passers-by, the average sura paid by them, etc.