Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 July 2005 in Case C-376/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch D. v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen (Tax legislation — Wealth tax — Entitlement to an allowance — Separate treatment of residents and non-residents — Double taxation convention)
Date: 2005-10-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, Netherlands, interpretation of the law, tax relief, wealth tax

C 271/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.10.2005

Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approxima-
tion of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the
Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of
certain dangerous substances and preparations, as amended by Euro-
pean Parliament and Council Directive 94/60/EC of 20 December
1994, must be interpreted as not permitting a Member State to
impose on the placing on the market and use of a biocidal product
the active substance of which is included in Annex I thereto conditions
other than those which the directive lays down, without prejudice to
the application of other relevant Community provisions laying down
specific conditions for that product.

the entitlement of persons to drive on the highway (Verordnung
über die Zulassung von Personen zum Strassenverkehr) of
18 August 1998, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
its obligations under Articles 1(2), 3, 5(2)(b), the third
fulfil
indent of Article 6(1)(b) and Article 8(2) of Council Directive
91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by
Council Directive 96/47/EC of 23 July 1996;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

(1) OJ C 251, 18.10.2003.

3. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 15 September 2005

in Case C-372/03: Commission of the European Commu-
nities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
91/439/EEC — Driving licences — Minimum age require-
ment to drive certain vehicles — Possibility of driving vehi-
cles in a category other than the one for which a driving
licence has been issued — Compulsory registration and
exchange of driving licences)

(2005/C 271/07)

(Language of the case: German)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 5 July 2005

in Case C-376/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch D. v Inspecteur van
de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buiten-
land te Heerlen (1)

(Tax legislation — Wealth tax — Entitlement to an allow-
ance — Separate treatment of residents and non-residents —
Double taxation convention)

(2005/C 271/08)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-372/03: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: G. Braun and W. Wils) v Federal Republic of Germany
(Agent: M. Lumma) — action under Article 226 EC for failure
to fulfil obligations, brought on 2 September 2003 — the
Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans,
President of
the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen
(Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advo-
cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15
September 2005, in which it:

1. Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force Paragraph
6(3), point 6, and (4), the first sentence of Paragraph 10(2), and
Paragraphs 29(1) and (3) and 47(2) of the Regulation relating to

In Case C-376/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Gerechtshof
te 's-Hertogenbosch
(Netherlands), made by decision of 24 July 2003, received at
the Court on 8 September 2003, in the proceedings between
D. and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Onderne-
mingen buitenland te Heerlen — the Court (Grand Chamber)
composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmer-
mans, A. Rosas and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, J.-
P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr
(Rapporteur), M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský, J. Klučka and U. Lõhmus,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M.-F.
Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judg-
ment on 5 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

29.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/5

1. Articles 56 EC and 58 EC do not preclude legislation under
which a Member State denies non-resident taxpayers who hold the
major part of their wealth in the State where they are resident enti-
tlement to the allowances which it grants to resident taxpayers.

relating to similar goods issued to a person not party to the
dispute by the customs authorities of another Member State is
submitted, and that court or tribunal takes the view that the tariff
those two
classification made in that
circumstances:

information is wrong,

2. Articles 56 EC and 58 EC do not preclude a rule laid down by a
bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation such as
the rule at issue in the main proceedings from not being extended,
in a situation and in circumstances such as those in the main
proceedings, to residents of a Member State which is not party to
that convention.

(1) OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.

— cannot result, in respect of a court or tribunal against whose
decisions there is a judicial remedy under national law, in the
court or tribunal being under an obligation to refer to the
Court questions on interpretation;

— cannot,

in themselves, automatically result,

in respect of a
court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial
remedy under national
in the court or tribunal being
under an obligation to refer to the Court questions on interpre-
tation.

law,

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 15 September 2005

in Case C-495/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Intermodal Transport
BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

(Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classifica-
tion in the combined nomenclature — Heading 8709 —
‘Magnum ET120 Terminal Tractor’ — Article 234 EC —
Obligation of a national court to refer a question for a preli-
minary ruling — Conditions — Binding tariff information
issued for a third party by the customs authorities of another
Member State concerning a similar vehicle)

(2005/C 271/09)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-495/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nether-
lands), made by decision of 21 November 2003, received at the
in the proceedings between
Court on 24 November 2003,
Intermodal Transport BV and
van
Staatssecretaris
Financiën — the Court (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann,
Schiemann
the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, K.
President of
(Rapporteur), E.
Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15
September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

Juhász and M.

Ilešič,

1. Article 234 EC must be interpreted as meaning that when, in
proceedings relating to the tariff classification of specific goods
before a national court or tribunal, a binding tariff information

A court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial
remedy under national law is, however, required, where a question
of Community law is raised before it, to comply with its obligation
to make a reference, unless it has established that the question
raised is irrelevant or that the Community provision in question
has already been interpreted by the Court or that the correct appli-
cation of Community law is so obvious as to leave no scope for
any reasonable doubt. The existence of such a possibility must be
assessed in the light of the specific characteristics of Community
law, the particular difficulties to which its interpretation gives rise
and the risk of divergences in judicial decisions within the Com-
munity; the existence of the abovementioned binding tariff infor-
mation must cause that court or tribunal to take particular care in
its assessment of whether there is no reasonable doubt as to the
correct application of the combined nomenclature in Annex I to
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the
tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs
Tariff, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2261/98
of 26 October 1998, taking account, in particular, of the three
criteria mentioned above.

2. Heading 8709 of the combined nomenclature must be interpreted
as not covering a vehicle equipped with a diesel engine having an
output of 132 kilowatts at 2 500 revolutions per minute and
automatic transmission with four forward gears and one reverse
gear, fitted with a closed cab and a fifth wheel allowing a lift
height of 60 centimetres, which has a maximum carrying capacity
of 32 000 kilograms, a very small turning circle and is designed
for moving semi-trailers on industrial premises and in industrial
buildings. Such a vehicle is neither a works truck used for the
transport of goods nor a tractor of
the type used in railway
stations, within the meaning of that heading.

(1) OJ C 21 of 24.01.2004.