Case C-392/05: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 April 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias — (Greece)) — Georgios Alevizos v Ipourgos Ikonomikon (Freedom of movement for workers — Directive 83/183/EEC — Article 6 — Definitive import into one Member State of a private vehicle from another Member State — Member of the armed forces of one Member State posted temporarily to another Member State for official reasons — Concept of normal residence )
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: armed forces, civil service, free movement of workers, import, interpretation of the law, paramilitary force, personal effects, residence, tax-free allowance

C 96/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

4. Article 3a(1)(f) of Directive 84/450, as amended by Directive
97/55, must be interpreted as meaning that, for products without
designation of origin, any comparison which relates to products
with designation of origin is not impermissible.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 April 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis
Epikratias — (Greece)) — Georgios Alevizos v Ipourgos
Ikonomikon

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

(Case C-392/05) (1)

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassa-
tion (Belgium)) — Raffaele Talotta v Belgium State

(Case C-383/05) (1)

(Freedom of establishment — Article 52 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Non-resident
taxpayer carrying out a self-employed activity — Setting of
minimum tax bases applicable only to non-resident taxpayers
— Justified by requirements of general interest — Effective-
ness of fiscal supervision — Not justified)

(2007/C 96/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) (Belgium)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Raffaele Talotta

Defendant: Belgium State

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation,
Belgium — Interpretation of Article 43 of the EC Treaty —
National legislation allowing minimum tax bases to be applied
only in the case of non-residents

Operative part of the judgment

Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC)
precludes legislation of a Member State, such as the rule resulting from
Article 342(2) of the Income Tax Code 1992 and Article 182 of the
Royal Decree of 27 August 1993 implementing the Income Tax
Code 1992, which lays down minimum tax bases only for non-resi-
dent taxpayers.

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

(Freedom of movement for workers — Directive 83/183/EEC
— Article 6 — Definitive import into one Member State of a
private vehicle from another Member State — Member of the
armed forces of one Member State posted temporarily to
another Member State for official reasons — Concept of
‘normal residence’)

(2007/C 96/19)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Simvoulio tis Epikratias

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Georgios Alevizos

Defendant: Ipourgos Ikonomikon

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias —
Interpretation of Article 6 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 indivi-
duals (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 64) — Scope of ‘normal residence’ —
Civil servants and officers of the armed forces posted abroad on
service

Operative part of the judgment

Excise duties such as those at issue in the main proceedings come
within the scope of the tax exemption provided for in Article 1(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, as amended by Council Directive 89/604/EEC
of 23 November 1989, where it is established — and that is some-
thing which it is for the national court to determine — that they are
normally charged on the permanent importation by a private individual
of a vehicle for personal use from another Member State. A special
supplementary single payment registration tax such as that at issue in
the main proceedings comes within Article 1(1) where it is established
— and that is something which it is for the national court to deter-
mine — that it is linked to the actual importation of the vehicle.

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/13

Article 6(1) of Directive 83/183 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, during the period of that task, his normal resi-
dence, within the meaning of Article 6(1),
in that other Member
State.

If, at the conclusion of the national court's investigations, it is estab-
lished that the taxes at issue in the main proceedings do not come
within the scope of the tax exemption provided for by Article 1(1) of
Directive 83/183, 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, imports a vehicle
into his Member State of origin is not placed in a less favourable posi-
tion in connection with those taxes than that of other persons living
permanently in that Member State 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 legit-
imate aim pursued by national law.

for

the Community trade mark ‘TRAVATAN’

in
applicant
respect of goods in Class 5 against Decision R 968/2001-3 of
the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (OHIM) of 30 January 2003, which had
dismissed the appeal brought against the decision of the Oppo-
sition Division refusing registration of that mark in the opposi-
tion proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national word
mark ‘TRIVASTAN’ in respect of goods in Class 5

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders Alcon Inc. to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM);

3. Orders Biofarma SA to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

(1) OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 26 April 2007
— Alcon Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Biofarma SA

(Case C-412/05 P) (1)

(Appeals — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 — Article 8(1)(b) — Relative ground for refusal
of registration — Likelihood of confusion — Article 43(2)
and (3) — Genuine use — New plea — Word mark
‘TRAVATAN’ — Opposition by proprietor of earlier national
trade mark ‘TRIVASTAN’)

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 29 March
the European Communities v
2007 — Commission of

French Republic

(Case C-423/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Waste
management — Directives 75/442/EEC and 1999/31/EC —
Unlawful or unsupervised landfill sites)

(2007/C 96/21)

Language of the case: French

(2007/C 96/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Alcon Inc. (represented by: G. Breen, solicitor, and
J. Gleeson SC)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market
(represented by:
(Trade Marks and Designs)
A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent) Biofarma SA (represented by:
V. Gil Vega and A. Ruiz López, laywers)

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance
(Third Chamber) of 22 September 2005 in Case T-130/03 Alcon
v OHIM dismissing an action for annulment brought by the

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Caeiros and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and
O. Christmann, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
of Articles 4, 8 and 9 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of
15 July 1975 (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39) on waste, as amended by
Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending
Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32) and
Article 14(a),
(b) and (c) of Council Directive 99/31/EC of
26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1)
— Failure to take necessary measures to close down or upgrade
unlawful or unsupervised landfill sites