Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2007:251
Date: 2007-04-26
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Taxation;Free movement of workers
Concepts: Equal treatment;Tax exemptions
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Greece

Summary of the Judgment 1. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Tax exemptions for permanent imports of the personal property of individuals – Directive 83/183 (Council Directive 83/183, Art. 1(1)) 2. Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Tax exemptions for permanent imports of the personal property of individuals – Normal residence within the meaning of Directive 83/183 (Council Directive 83/183, Art. 6(1)) 3. Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Equal treatment (Art. 39 EC; Council Directive 83/183, Art. 1(1)) 1. Excise duties levied by a Member State when a vehicle for personal use is permanently imported from another Member State come within the scope of the tax exemption provided for in Article 1(1) of Directive 83/183 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals where it becomes clear – and that is something for the national court to determine – that they are normally charged on the permanent import by a private individual of a vehicle for personal use from another Member State, as required under Article 1(1). A special supplementary single‑payment registration tax when that import is made also falls within Article 1(1) where it becomes clear – and that is something which it is for the national court to determine – that it is linked to the actual importation of the vehicle. Conversely, where the national provisions governing the tax concerned identify the operative event giving rise to the tax as something other than importation, such as a first registration or the use of a vehicle on national territory, the tax does not come within the scope of that provision. (see paras 48-49, 51 and operative part) 2. Article 6(1) of Directive 83/183 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals must be interpreted as meaning that an employee in the public service, the armed forces, the public security forces or the harbour police corps of a Member State, who stays for at least 185 days a year in another Member State with the members of his family in order to carry out an official task of a definite duration in that latter State, has, for the duration of that task, his normal residence, within the meaning of Article 6(1), in that other Member State. The criteria for determining the concept of normal residence refer both to a person’s occupational and personal ties with a particular place and to the duration of those ties and consequently, must be examined in conjunction with each other. In the event that an overall assessment of occupational and personal ties does not suffice to locate the permanent centre of interests of the person concerned, primacy must be given, for the purposes of locating it, to personal ties. (see paras 54-55, 61-62, 81, operative part) 3. If, at the conclusion of the national court’s investigations, it becomes clear that taxes levied by a Member State when a vehicle for personal use is permanently imported from another Member State do not come within the scope of the tax exemption provided for by Article 1(1) of Directive 83/183 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals, it will be for the national court, having regard to the requirements arising from Article 39 EC, to determine whether the national provisions governing those taxes are such as to ensure that a person who, in the context of a transfer of residence, after the completion of professional activities in another Member State, imports a vehicle into his Member State of origin is not placed in a less favourable position in connection with those taxes than that of other persons living permanently in that Member State, in particular as regards the account to be taken of the actual depreciation of the vehicle subject to tax, and, if so, whether such a difference in treatment is justified by objective considerations that are independent of the residence of the persons concerned and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by national law. (see paras 78, 81, operative part)