Case C-313/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie, Poland) — Maciej Brzeziński v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Warszawie (Internal taxation — Taxes on motor vehicles — Excise duties — Second-hand vehicles — Import)
Date: 2007-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, Poland, interpretation of the law, intra-EU trade, measure having equivalent effect, quantitative restriction, tax system, used goods, vehicle tax

C 56/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.3.2007

inadmissible

in so far as

4. Dismisses the application of Osman Ocalan on behalf of the PKK
as
challenges Council Decision
2002/334/EC of 2 May 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of
Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures
directed against
certain persons and entities with a view to
combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2001/927/EC;

it

5. Declares that the application of Osman Ocalan on behalf of the
PKK is admissible in so far as it challenges Council Decision
2002/460/EC of 17 June 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of
Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures
directed against
certain persons and entities with a view to
combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/334/EC, and
refers the case back to the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities for judgment on the substance;

6. Reserves the costs of Osman Ocalan on behalf of the PKK.

(1) OJ C 86, 8.4.2006.

Re:

Interpretation of Article 8 of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of
20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to the protection of employees in the
event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283,
p. 23) — Extent of the obligation to protect rights conferring
on employees immediate or prospective entitlement to old-age
benefits

Operative part of the judgment

1) On a proper

construction of Article 8 of Council Directive
80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the
laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees
in the event of the insolvency of their employer, where the employer
is insolvent and the assets of the supplementary company or inter-
company pension schemes are insufficient, accrued pension rights
need not necessarily be funded by the Member States themselves or
be funded in full.

2) A system of protection such as that at issue in the main proceed-

ings is incompatible with Article 8 of Directive 80/987.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 January
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the High
Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division,
United Kingdom) — Carol Marilyn Robins and Others v
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

3) If Article 8 of Directive 80/987 has not been properly transposed
into domestic law, the liability of the Member State concerned is
contingent on a finding of manifest and grave disregard by that
State for the limits set on its discretion.

(Case C-278/05) (1)

(1) OJ C 243, 1.10.2005.

(Protection of employees in the event of the employer's insol-
vency — Directive 80/987/EEC — Transposition — Article 8
— Supplementary company or inter-company pension schemes
— Old-age benefits — Protection of
conferring
immediate entitlement — Extent of protection — Liability of a
Member State by reason of the incorrect transposition of a
directive — Conditions)

rights

(2007/C 56/09)

Language of the case: English

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 January 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki
Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie, Poland) — Maciej Brze-
ziński v Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Warszawie

(Case C-313/05) (1)

(Internal taxation — Taxes on motor vehicles — Excise duties
— Second-hand vehicles — Import)

Referring court

High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division

(2007/C 56/10)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties in the main proceedings

Applicants: Carol Marilyn Robins and Others

Referring court

Defendant: Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/7

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Maciej Brzeziński

Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej w Warszawie

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Wars-
zawie (Poland) — Interpretation of Articles 25 EC, 28 EC and
90 EC, and of Article 3(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of
25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products
subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and moni-
toring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1) — National tax
(excise duty) imposed on vehicles when first registered within
the national territory, the rate being calculated on the basis of
the age of the vehicle — Intra-Community acquisition of a
second-hand vehicle — Obligation to submit a declaration
within five days of such acquisition

Operative part of the judgment

1) An excise duty such as that introduced in Poland by the 2004
Law, which does not affect passenger vehicles by reason of the fact
that they cross the frontier, is not a customs duty on import or a
charge having equivalent effect within the meaning of Article 25
EC.

2) The first paragraph of Article 90 EC is to be interpreted as
meaning that it precludes an excise duty, in so far as the amount of
the duty imposed on second-hand vehicles over
two years old
acquired in a Member State other than that which introduced such
a duty exceeds the residual amount of the same duty incorporated
into the purchase price of similar vehicles which had been previously
registered in the Member State which introduced that duty. It is for
the national court to examine whether the legislation at issue in
the main proceedings, in particular the application of Article 7 of
the Order of the Minister for Finance of 22 April 2004 on the
lowering of the rates of excise duty, has such an effect.

3) Article 28 EC does not apply to a simplified declaration such as
that provided for
the Polish Law of
in Article 81(1)(1) of
23 January 2004 on Excise Duty and Article 3(3) of Council
Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general
arrangements
to excise duty and on the
holding, movement and monitoring of such products does not
preclude such a declaration when the legislation in question may be
interpreted as meaning that that declaration must be made as from
the time of the acquisition of the right to use the passenger vehicle
as owner and, at the latest, as from the time of its registration in
Poland under road traffic provisions.

for products subject

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 January 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfi-
(Germany)) — Finanzamt Dinslaken v Gerold
nanzhof

Meindl

(Case C-329/05) (1)

(Freedom of establishment — Article 52 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Self-employed
person — Income tax — Spouses who live apart on a non-
permanent basis — Refusal of joint assessment — Spouses
residing separately — Wage compensation benefits for the
non-resident spouse — Income not subject to tax in the spou-
se's Member State of residence)

(2007/C 56/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof (Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finanzamt Dinslaken

Defendant: Gerold Meindl

Third party: Christine Meindl-Berger

Re:

for

a preliminary

Reference
ruling — Bundesfinanzhof
(Germany) — Interpretation of Article 43 of the EC Treaty —
National provisions on income tax — Refusal to assess to tax
jointly spouses on the ground that the income received by the
wife in the Member State of her residence exceeds certain
thresholds, where in that Member State that income is not
subject to tax.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)
precludes a resident taxpayer from being refused, by the Member State
of his residence, joint assessment to income tax with his spouse from
whom he is not separated and who lives in another Member State, on
the ground that that spouse received in that Member State both more
than 10 % of the household's income and more than DEM 24 000,
where the income received by that spouse in the second Member State
is not there subject to income tax.

(1) OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.

(1) OJ C 271, 29.10.2005.