Case C-383/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 22 March 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium)) — Raffaele Talotta v Belgium State (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 — Effectiveness of fiscal supervision — Not justified)
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, basis of tax assessment, interpretation of the law, residence, tax on income

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.