CELEX: C2004/007/07
Language: en
Date: 2004-01-10 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 November 2003 in Case C-209/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Theodor Schilling, Angelika Fleck-Schilling v Finanzamt Nürnberg-Süd (Free movement of workers — Officials and servants of the European Communities — Maintenance of domicile for tax purposes in the Member State of origin — Income tax — Deduction of expenditure in respect of a household assistant)

10.1.2004                 EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                  C 7/5
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 20 November 2003
                                                                                                    of 13 November 2003
in Case C-152/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesfinanzhof): Kyocera Electronics Europe GmbH                         in Case C-209/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                     v Hauptzollamt Krefeld (1)                               the Bundesfinanzhof): Theodor Schilling, Angelika Fleck-
                                                                                          Schilling v Finanzamt Nürnberg-Süd (1)
(Common Customs Tariff — Customs value — Determi-
nation of the transaction value — Interest payable under a                    (Free movement of workers — Officials and servants of the
financing arrangement — Exclusion — Conditions — Inter-                       European Communities — Maintenance of domicile for tax
est distinguished from the price actually paid or payable —                   purposes in the Member State of origin — Income tax —
     Declaration not mentioning the interest due or paid)                     Deduction of expenditure in respect of a household assistant)
                             (2004/C 7/06)
                                                                                                         (2004/C 7/07)
                     (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                                 (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                 in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-152/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Kyocera                     In Case C-209/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
Electronics Europe GmbH and Hauptzollamt Krefeld, on the                      by the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in
interpretation of Article 3(2)(a) of Commission Regulation                    the proceedings pending before that court between Theodor
(EEC) No 1495/80 of 11 June 1980 implementing certain                         Schilling, Angelika Fleck-Schilling and Finanzamt Nürnberg-
provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1224/80 on the                      Süd, on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now,
valuation of goods for customs purposes (OJ 1980 L 154,                       after amendment, Article 39 EC) and of the first paragraph of
p. 14), as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 220/                     Article 14 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities
85 of 29 January 1985 (OJ 1985 L 25, p. 7), the Court (Fifth                  of the European Communities, the Court (Fifth Chamber),
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of                   composed of: D.A.O. Edward, acting for the President of the
the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur) and                         Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr (Rapporteur),
S. von Bahr, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass,                 Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 November 2003, in                       given a judgment on 13 November 2003, in which it has
which it has ruled:                                                           ruled:
Article 3(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1495/80 of                  Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC),
11 June 1980 implementing certain provisions of Council Regulation            in conjunction with Article 14 of the Protocol on the Privileges and
(EEC) No 1224/80 on the valuation of goods for customs purposes,              Immunities of the European Communities, precludes a situation in
as amended by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 220/85 of                        which officials of the European Communities who are of German
29 January 1985, is to be interpreted as meaning that payments of             origin and are resident in Luxembourg, where they work as officials,
interest are distinguished from the price of the goods even if, at the        and who have incurred expenditure in respect of a household assistant
time when the customs declaration is accepted, the customs authorities        in the latter Member State cannot deduct that expenditure from their
are in possession only of the invoice for the net price of the goods and      taxable income in Germany by reason of the fact that the contributions
neither that invoice nor the declaration of customs value reveal              paid for the household assistant were made to the Luxembourg
expressly or by implication that the buyer paid or must pay interest          statutory pension insurance scheme and not to the German scheme.
to the seller in the context of the import transaction in question.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
(1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.