CELEX: C2007/096/19
Language: en
Date: 2007-04-28 00:00:00
Title: 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 )

28.4.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 96/12
            
         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
   (Case C-392/05) (1)
   
   (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 individuals (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 something 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 determine — that it is linked to the actual importation of the vehicle.
   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 residence, within the meaning of Article 6(1), in that other Member State.
   If, at the conclusion of the national court's investigations, it is established 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 position 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 legitimate aim pursued by national law.
   
      (1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.