Case C-144/08: Action brought on 8 April 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
Date: 2008-04-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, import, motor vehicle, national implementing measure, residence, tax-free allowance

C 171/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2008

If the answer is in the affirmative, would the answer be
different if in determining the amount of the transitional
stock and surplus stock it were possible also to take into
account the growth of the operator's production, proces-
sing or sales volume, the maturation period of the agri-
cultural product, the time when the stocks were built
up,
the
operator?

independent of

circumstances

and other

2.2 Is it compatible with the objective of Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No 1972/2003 to levy the surplus stock
charge where the operator is found to have a surplus
stock as at 1 May 2004 but the operator shows that he
has not obtained a real advantage in terms of a price
difference from marketing the surplus stock after 1 May
2004?

(1) OJ L 139, 30.4.2004, p. 55.
(2) OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.
(3) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1972/2003 of 10 November 2003
on transitional measures to be adopted in respect of trade in agri-
cultural products on account of the accession of the Czech Republic,
Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia
and Slovakia (OJ L 293, 11.11.2003, p. 3).

Action brought on 8 April 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Finland

Pleas in law and main arguments

For the purpose of determining tax exemptions, Article 7(1) of
Directive 83/182/EEC governs normal residence, which deter-
mines the Member State under whose rules on temporary
imports the vehicle in question falls, and the Member State
which is entitled to charge tax on that vehicle. Article 7(1) of
Directive 83/182/EEC governs certain exceptions to the rule
according to which normal residence means the place where a
person usually lives for at least 185 days in each calendar year.
In particular, the second subparagraph of Article 7(1) states that
if the normal residence of a person whose occupational ties are
in a different place from his personal ties and who consequently
lives in turn in different places situated in two or more Member
States shall be regarded as being the place of his personal ties,
provided that such person returns there regularly. However, it is
expressly stated that the last condition need not be met where
the person is living in a Member State in order to carry out a
task of a definite duration.

However, Finnish legislation imposes a requirement
for the
person concerned to return to the place of normal residence
also in the case where he is living in Finland in order to carry
out a task of a definite duration. Therefore, Finland has failed to
correctly transpose Article 7(1) of Directive 83/182/EEC into
national law.

(1) OJ 1998 L 105, p. 59.

(Case C-144/08)

(2008/C 171/24)

Language of the case: Finnish

Appeal brought on 3 April 2008 by Efkon AG against the
order of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of
22 January 2008 in Case T-298/04, Efkon AG v European
Parliament and Council of the European Union

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: I. Koskinen and D. Triantafyllou)

Defendant: Republic of Finland

Parties

(Case C-146/08 P)

(2008/C 171/25)

Language of the case: German

Form of order sought

— declare that, by using an incomplete definition of normal
residence in order to determine whether the temporary
import of certain forms of
to tax
exemptions, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 7(1) of Council Directive
No 83/182/EEC (1) of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions
transport
within the Community for certain means of
temporarily imported into one Member State from another;

is subject

transport

— order Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Appellant: Efkon AG (represented by: M. Novak, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of
the European Union, Commission of the European Commu-
nities

Form of order sought

— Set aside the order of

Instance of
22 January 2008 under appeal (T-298/04) as unlawful, and
direct the Court to follow due process of law and to reach a
decision on the merits;

the Court of First