Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-365/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)): Marie Lindfors (Directive 83/183/EEC — Transfer of residence from one Member State to another — Tax levied before registration or bringing into use of a vehicle)
Date: 2004-09-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, exemption from customs duties, interpretation of the law, tax on consumption, vehicle tax

11.9.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 228/7

On a proper construction 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), bye-laws adopted by a trade association governed
by public law for the purpose of funding an advertising campaign
organised for the benefit of its members and decided on by them,
through resources
levied from those members and compulsorily
earmarked for the funding of that campaign, do not constitute an
integral part of an aid measure within the meaning of those provi-
sions and it was not necessary for prior notification of them to be
given to the Commission since it has been established that
that
funding was carried out by means of resources which that trade asso-
ciation, governed by public law, never had the power to dispose of
freely.

(1) OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 July 2004, the opera-
tive part of which is as follows:

in the Member State

Article 1 of Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on
tax exemptions applicable to permanent
imports from a Member
State of the personal property of individuals must be interpreted as
not precluding, in connection with a transfer of residence of the owner
of a vehicle from one Member State to another, a tax such as that
laid down by the Autoverolaki (1482/1994) (Law on Car Tax) from
being charged before the registration or bringing into use of
the
vehicle
transferred.
However, having regard to the requirements deriving from Article 18
EC, it is for the national court to ascertain whether the application of
national law is capable of ensuring that, as regards that tax, that
owner is not placed in a less favourable situation than that of citizens
who have been permanently resident in the Member State in question
and, if necessary, whether such a difference of treatment is justified by
objective considerations independent of the residence of the persons
concerned and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by national
law.

to which residence

is

(First Chamber)

(1) OJ C 323 of 21.12.2002.

of 15 July 2004

in Case C-365/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)): Marie Lindfors (1)

(Directive 83/183/EEC — Transfer of residence from one
Member State to another — Tax levied before registration or
bringing into use of a vehicle)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 15 July 2004

(2004/C 228/13)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

in Case C-415/02: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Indirect
taxes — Directive 69/335/EEC — Raising of capital — Tax
on stock exchange transactions — Tax on the delivery of
bearer securities)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

(2004/C 228/14)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-365/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court)
(Finland) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court brought by Marie Lindfors — on the interpre-
tation of Article 1 of Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28
March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent
imports from a Member State of the personal property of indi-
viduals (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 64), — 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; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

In Case C-415/02: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: R. Lyal and C. Giolito) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent:
A. Snoecx assisted by B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, avocat) —
application for a declaration that: