Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-345/02 (reference to the Court of Justice under Article 234 EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands)): Pearle BV and Others v Hoofdbedrijfschap Ambachten (State aid — Definition of aid — Collective advertising campaigns in favour of one sector of the economy — Financing by means of a special contribution payable by undertakings in that sector — Action taken by a body governed by public law)
Date: 2004-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: State aid, advertising, interpretation of the law, public institution, tax system

C 228/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.9.2004

1. Articles 73b and 73d(1) and (3) of the EC Treaty (now, respec-
tively, Articles 56 EC and 58(1) and (3) EC) preclude legislation
which allows only the recipients of
revenue from capital of
Austrian origin to choose between a tax with discharging effect
and ordinary income tax with the application of a rate reduced by
half, while providing that revenue from capital originating in
another Member State must be subject to ordinary income tax
without any reduction in the rate.

2. Refusal to grant the recipients of revenue from capital originating
in another Member State the tax advantages granted to recipients
of revenue from capital of Austrian origin cannot be justified by
the fact
revenue from companies established in another
Member State is subject to low taxation in that State.

that

Article 25 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 is to be interpreted as meaning that a farmer who has
leased and/or let on a long-term basis some of the material assets of
his farming business but continues to farm with the rest of his assets
and who, in respect of the continued farming activity, is subject to the
common flat-rate scheme provided for in Article 25 may not treat the
income from such a lease and/or letting as being taxable under that
scheme. The turnover from that arrangement must be taxed under the
normal scheme or, where appropriate, the simplified scheme of value
added tax.

(1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.

(1) OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 15 July 2004

in Case C-321/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany): Finanzamt Rendsburg v
Detlev Harbs (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 25 — Common flat-rate
scheme for farmers — Leasing of part of a farm)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 15 July 2004

in Case C-345/02 (reference to the Court of Justice under
Article 234 EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
the Netherlands)): Pearle BV and
(Supreme Court of

Others v Hoofdbedrijfschap Ambachten (1)

(State aid — Definition of aid — Collective advertising
campaigns in favour of one sector of the economy — Finan-
cing by means of a special contribution payable by undertak-
ings in that sector — Action taken by a body governed by
public law)

(2004/C 228/11)

(Language of the case: German)

(2004/C 228/12)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

In Case C-321/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Finanzamt Rendsburg and Detlev Harbs on the
interpretation of Article 25 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
(OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (First Chamber), composed
of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, S. von Bahr
(Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; P.
Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment
on 15 July 2004, in which it ruled:

In Case C-345/02: reference to the Court of
Justice under
Article 234 EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nether-
lands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings before that
court between Pearle BV and Others v Hoofdbedrijfschap
Ambachten on the interpretation of Articles 92(1) of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) and 93(3) of
the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) — the Court
(First
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A.
Rosas, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts
(Rapporteur),
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 July 2004,
the operative part of which is as follows:

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/7

On a proper construction of Articles 92(1) of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) and 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now
Article 88(3) EC), bye-laws adopted by a trade association governed
by public law for the purpose of funding an advertising campaign
organised for the benefit of its members and decided on by them,
through resources
levied from those members and compulsorily
earmarked for the funding of that campaign, do not constitute an
integral part of an aid measure within the meaning of those provi-
sions and it was not necessary for prior notification of them to be
given to the Commission since it has been established that
that
funding was carried out by means of resources which that trade asso-
ciation, governed by public law, never had the power to dispose of
freely.

(1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 July 2004, the opera-
tive part of which is as follows:

in the Member State

Article 1 of Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on
tax exemptions applicable to permanent
imports from a Member
State of the personal property of individuals must be interpreted as
not precluding, in connection with a transfer of residence of the owner
of a vehicle from one Member State to another, a tax such as that
laid down by the Autoverolaki (1482/1994) (Law on Car Tax) from
being charged before the registration or bringing into use of
the
vehicle
transferred.
However, having regard to the requirements deriving from Article 18
EC, it is for the national court to ascertain whether the application of
national law is capable of ensuring that, as regards that tax, that
owner is not placed in a less favourable situation than that of citizens
who have been permanently resident in the Member State in question
and, if necessary, whether such a difference of treatment is justified by
objective considerations independent of the residence of the persons
concerned and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by national
law.

to which residence

is

(First Chamber)

(1) OJ C 323 of 21.12.2002.

of 15 July 2004

in Case C-365/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)): Marie Lindfors (1)

(Directive 83/183/EEC — Transfer of residence from one
Member State to another — Tax levied before registration or
bringing into use of a vehicle)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 15 July 2004

(2004/C 228/13)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

in Case C-415/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Indirect
taxes — Directive 69/335/EEC — Raising of capital — Tax
on stock exchange transactions — Tax on the delivery of
bearer securities)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

(2004/C 228/14)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-365/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court)
(Finland) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court brought by Marie Lindfors — on the interpre-
tation of Article 1 of Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28
March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent
imports from a Member State of the personal property of indi-
viduals (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 64), — the Court (First Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, S.
von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur),
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

In Case C-415/02: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: R. Lyal and C. Giolito) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent:
A. Snoecx assisted by B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, avocat) —
application for a declaration that: