Case C-152/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of  21 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof — Hans-Jürgen Ritter-Coulais, Monique Ritter-Coulais v Finanzamt Germersheim (Tax legislation — Income tax — Article 48 EEC (subsequently Article 48 EC, now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) — National rules restricting recognition of rental income losses from immovable property situated in another Member State)
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, financial loss, interpretation of the law, remuneration of work, tax on income

C 131/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 February
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High
Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division)
— BUPA Hospitals Ltd, Goldsborough Developments Ltd
v Commissioners of Customs & Excise

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 February
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfi-
nanzhof — Hans-Jürgen Ritter-Coulais, Monique Ritter-
Coulais v Finanzamt Germersheim

(Case C-419/02) (1)

(Case C-152/03) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Article 10(2) — Chargeability of
VAT — Payment of amounts on account — Prepayments for
future supplies of pharmaceutical products and prostheses)

(2006/C 131/02)

Language of the case: English

(Tax legislation — Income tax — Article 48 EEC (subse-
quently Article 48 EC, now, after amendment, Article 39 EC)
— National rules restricting recognition of rental
income
losses from immovable property situated in another Member
State)

(2006/C 131/03)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)

Applicant: BUPA Hospitals Ltd, Goldsborough Developments
Ltd

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant: Commissioners of Customs & Excise

Applicants: Hans-Jürgen Ritter-Coulais, Monique Ritter-Coulais

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Justice,
Chancery Division — 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)
— Concepts of ‘supply of goods’ and ‘economic activities’ —
Contracts between companies for the supply of pharmaceutical
products and prostheses having the sole aim of obtaining a tax
advantage.

Defendant: Finanzamt Germersheim

Re:

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling — Bundesfinanzhof —
Interpretation of Articles 43 and 56 EC — National legislation
on personal
income tax limiting the right to deduct rental
income losses from immovable property and applying the
negative tax progression clause only to those losses relating to
property situated in the national territory

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Prepayments of the kind at issue in the main proceedings whereby
lump sums are paid for goods referred to in general terms in a list
which may be altered at any time by agreement between the buyer and
the seller and from which the buyer may possibly select articles, on the
basis of an agreement which he may unilaterally resile from at any
time, thereupon recovering the unused balance of the prepayments, do
not fall within the scope of the second subparagraph of Article 10(2)
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 assess-
ment, as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995.

Article 48 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 48 of the EC
Treaty and now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) must be interpreted
as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main
proceedings, which does not permit natural persons in receipt of
income from employment in one Member State, and assessable to tax
on their total income there, to have income losses relating to their
own use of a private dwelling in another Member State taken into
account for the purposes of determining the rate of taxation applicable
to their income in the former state, whereas positive rental income
relating to such a dwelling is taken into account.

(1) OJ C 31, 08.02.2003

(1) OJ C 158, 05.07.2003