Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 20 November 2003 in Case C-152/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Kyocera Electronics Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (Common Customs Tariff — Customs value — Determination of the transaction value — Interest payable under a financing arrangement — Exclusion — Conditions — Interest distinguished from the price actually paid or payable — Declaration not mentioning the interest due or paid)
Date: 2004-01-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs formalities, customs valuation, interest, interpretation of the law, purchase price

10.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 7/5

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 20 November 2003

(Fifth Chamber)

of 13 November 2003

in Case C-152/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): Kyocera Electronics Europe GmbH
v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (1)

(Common Customs Tariff — Customs value — Determi-
nation of the transaction value — Interest payable under a
financing arrangement — Exclusion — Conditions — Inter-
est distinguished from the price actually paid or payable —
Declaration not mentioning the interest due or paid)

in Case C-209/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): Theodor Schilling, Angelika Fleck-
Schilling v Finanzamt Nürnberg-Süd (1)

(Free movement of workers — Officials and servants of the
European Communities — Maintenance of domicile for tax
purposes in the Member State of origin — Income tax —
Deduction of expenditure in respect of a household assistant)

(2004/C 7/06)

(Language of the case: German)

(2004/C 7/07)

(Language of the case: German)

(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-152/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Kyocera
Electronics Europe GmbH and Hauptzollamt Krefeld, on the
interpretation of Article 3(2)(a) of Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 1495/80 of 11 June 1980 implementing certain
provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1224/80 on the
valuation of goods for customs purposes (OJ 1980 L 154,
p. 14), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 220/
85 of 29 January 1985 (OJ 1985 L 25, p. 7), the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of
the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur) and
S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 November 2003, in
which it has ruled:

Article 3(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1495/80 of
11 June 1980 implementing certain provisions of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1224/80 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes,
as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 220/85 of
29 January 1985, is to be interpreted as meaning that payments of
interest are distinguished from the price of the goods even if, at the
time when the customs declaration is accepted, the customs authorities
are in possession only of the invoice for the net price of the goods and
neither that invoice nor the declaration of customs value reveal
expressly or by implication that the buyer paid or must pay interest
to the seller in the context of the import transaction in question.

In Case C-209/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Theodor
Schilling, Angelika Fleck-Schilling and Finanzamt Nürnberg-
Süd, on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, Article 39 EC) and of the first paragraph of
Article 14 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities
of the European Communities, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting for the President of the
Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur),
Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
given a judgment on 13 November 2003, in which it has
ruled:

Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC),
in conjunction with Article 14 of the Protocol on the Privileges and
Immunities of the European Communities, precludes a situation in
which officials of the European Communities who are of German
origin and are resident in Luxembourg, where they work as officials,
and who have incurred expenditure in respect of a household assistant
in the latter Member State cannot deduct that expenditure from their
taxable income in Germany by reason of the fact that the contributions
paid for the household assistant were made to the Luxembourg
statutory pension insurance scheme and not to the German scheme.

(1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.

(1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.