Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-315/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Anneliese Lenz v Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol (Free movement of capital — Tax on revenue from capital — Revenue from capital of Austrian origin: tax rate of 25 % in discharge or rate equal to half of the average tax rate on aggregate income — Income from capital originating in another Member State: normal tax rate)
Date: 2004-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: company with share capital, corporation tax, interpretation of the law, tax, tax on income

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/5

1) Article 2 of Directive 1999/4/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 22 February 1999 relating to coffee extracts
and chicory extracts must be interpreted as meaning that, when
products mentioned in the annex to that directive are marketed,
other names, such as invented or trade names, are not precluded
from being used alongside the product names.

2) Article 18(1) and (2) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approx-
imation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
presentation and advertising of foodstuffs must be interpreted as
precluding national legislation, such as that at issue, which prohi-
bits references to ‘slimming’ and to ‘medical recommendations,
attestations, declarations or statements of approval’ in the labelling
and presentation of foodstuffs.

3) Articles 28 EC and 30 EC must be interpreted as precluding
national legislation which prohibits references in the advertising of
foodstuffs imported from other Member States to ‘slimming’ and
to ‘medical recommendations, attestations, declarations or state-
ments of approval’.

(1) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 13 July 2004

in Case C-262/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v French Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Article
59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
— Television broadcasting — Advertising — National
measure prohibiting television advertising for alcoholic
beverages marketed in that State, in the case of indirect tele-
vision advertising resulting from the appearance on screen of
certain
hoardings visible during the

retransmission of

sporting events — ‘Loi Evin’)

(2004/C 228/09)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-262/02: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: H. van Lier) supported by United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: K. Manji and K. Beal) v
French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and R. Loosli-Surrans)
— application for a declaration that, by making television
broadcasting in France by French television channels of
sporting events taking place in other Member States conditional
on the prior removal of advertising for alcoholic beverages, the

French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article
59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) —
the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President,
P. Jann (Rapporteur), A. Rosas, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet
(Presidents of Chambers), R.
and J.N. Cunha-Rodrigues
Schintgen, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta,
Judges;
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal
Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
13 July 2004, in which it:

1. Dismisses the action.

2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the

costs.

3. Orders

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 202 of 24.8.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 15 July 2004

in Case C-315/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Anneliese Lenz v Finanzlan-
desdirektion für Tirol (1)

(Free movement of capital — Tax on revenue from capital —
Revenue from capital of Austrian origin: tax rate of 25 % in
discharge or rate equal to half of the average tax rate on
aggregate income — Income from capital originating in
another Member State: normal tax rate)

(2004/C 228/10)

(Language of the case: German)

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

(Austria)

In Case C-315/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof
for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Anneliese Lenz and Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol — on the
interpretation of Articles 73b et 73d of the EC Treaty (now
Articles 56 EC and 58 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; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 15
July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

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: