CELEX: C2005/205/11
Language: en
Date: 2005-08-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-233/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch by judgment of that court of 16 February 2005 in V.O.F. Dressuurstal Jespers v Inspecteur van de Belastingsdienst/Zuidwest/kantoor Breda van de Rijksbelastingdienst

20.8.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 205/6
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch by judgment of that court of 16 February 2005 in V.O.F. Dressuurstal Jespers v Inspecteur van de Belastingsdienst/Zuidwest/kantoor Breda van de Rijksbelastingdienst
   (Case C-233/05)
   (2005/C 205/11)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch ('s-Hertogenbosch Regional Court of Appeal) of 16 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 30 May 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between V.O.F. Dressuurstal Jespers and Inspecteur van de Belastingsdienst/Zuidwest/kantoor Breda van de Rijksbelastingdienst on the following questions:
   
               1(a)
            
            
               In the case in which a horse that has not been broken in is trained to make it suitable for certain uses, such as, for example, use as a riding horse, is a new article created and is there therefore production within the terms of Article 5(7)(a) of the Sixth Directive? (1)
               
            
         
               1(b)
            
            
               In the case in which, for example, a horse which is already suitable for certain uses such as referred to in Question 1(a) above is trained in such a way that it is capable of participating in (dressage) competitions at a higher level than before such training, is there production as referred to in Question 1(a) above?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Is it material to the reply to these questions whether there is a change to the horse which can be measured objectively, such as, for example, it being or becoming entitled to compete in a higher dressage class?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Does it make any difference in this regard whether the horse concerned also actually attains the intended objective (the supply by the producer) or that the horse does not attain the objective sought by its training on account of problems relating to health or ability, for example?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               What are the consequences of the answer to Questions 2 and 3 having regard to the fact that this case concerns a recurrent charge where the tax owed is paid periodically by declaration?
            
         
      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member State relating to turnover taxes— Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145 of 13 June 1977, p. 1).