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 (Sixth VAT Directive — Article 25 — Common flat-rate scheme for farmers — Leasing of part of a farm)
Date: 2004-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: agricultural holding, basis of tax assessment, farm lease, interpretation of the law, tax exemption

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: