natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
In this respect the three main problems are the following:
In this respect the three main problems are the following:
Determination of the place of "normal residence"
Determination of the place of "normal residence"
Although, according to the Greek authorities, Greek legislation is formally correct on this point, since it reproduces exactly the wording of Article 7 of the directive, it seems that the practical application of this rule in Greece gives rise to difficulties.
Although, according to the Greek authorities, Greek legislation is formally correct on this point, since it reproduces exactly the wording of Article 7 of the directive, it seems that the practical application of this rule in Greece gives rise to difficulties.
It has turned up that Greek nationals who have worked and lived for many years in another Member State have been considered as residents in Greece.
It has turned up that Greek nationals who have worked and lived for many years in another Member State have been considered as residents in Greece.
Moreover, it appears that the Greek authorities give a disproportionate importance to "family ties" when it comes to determining the place of "normal residence" .
Moreover, it appears that the Greek authorities give a disproportionate importance to "family ties" when it comes to determining the place of "normal residence" .
For example, an adult living independently in another Member State, while his parents continue to live in Greece, is deemed to be resident in Greece until such time as he marries abroad.
For example, an adult living independently in another Member State, while his parents continue to live in Greece, is deemed to be resident in Greece until such time as he marries abroad.
The Court has ruled that for the purposes of Article 7 of the directive, "normal residence" means the place where a person usually lives, that is for at least 185 days in each calendar year, because of personal and occupational ties, or, in the case of a person with no occupational ties, because of personal ties which show close links between that person and the place where he is living.
The Court has ruled that for the purposes of Article 7 of the directive, "normal residence" means the place where a person usually lives, that is for at least 185 days in each calendar year, because of personal and occupational ties, or, in the case of a person with no occupational ties, because of personal ties which show close links between that person and the place where he is living.
However, 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, 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.
This 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
This 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
Judgement in Case C-262/99, ground 8. .
Judgement in Case C-262/99, ground 8. .
Where a person has both personal and occupational ties in two Member States, which is the case for a number of the petitioners, his or her normal residence, determined in the context of an overall assessment by reference to all the relevant facts, is thus the place where the permanent centre of interests of that person is located.
Where a person has both personal and occupational ties in two Member States, which is the case for a number of the petitioners, his or her normal residence, determined in the context of an overall assessment by reference to all the relevant facts, is thus the place where the permanent centre of interests of that person is located.
In the event that such an overall assessment does not result in its determination, primacy must according to the Court of Justice be given to personal ties.
In the event that such an overall assessment does not result in its determination, primacy must according to the Court of Justice be given to personal ties.
It should in this context be born in mind that the petitioners fulfilled the general rules for determination of residence, as laid down in Article 7 (2) of the Directive, which states that individuals shall give proof of their place of normal residence by any appropriate means, such as their identity card or any other valid document, and that they in cases, where the competent authorities had doubts as to the validity of these means, provided the additional information or evidence requested.
It should in this context be born in mind that the petitioners fulfilled the general rules for determination of residence, as laid down in Article 7 (2) of the Directive, which states that individuals shall give proof of their place of normal residence by any appropriate means, such as their identity card or any other valid document, and that they in cases, where the competent authorities had doubts as to the validity of these means, provided the additional information or evidence requested.
The extremely severe penalties which are imposed in case of infringement of the rules set out in Directive 83/182/EEC
The extremely severe penalties which are imposed in case of infringement of the rules set out in Directive 83/182/EEC
Astronomical fines (dependent on the cubic centimetres of the vehicles) have been imposed on the petitioners in respect of each motor vehicle that they "imported into" the Hellenic Republic "without declaring it" and doubling of the customs duties and other taxes which, according to the customs authorities, they had intentionally evaded - a procedure which has caused the petitioners serious health disorders and huge financial losses.
Astronomical fines (dependent on the cubic centimetres of the vehicles) have been imposed on the petitioners in respect of each motor vehicle that they "imported into" the Hellenic Republic "without declaring it" and doubling of the customs duties and other taxes which, according to the customs authorities, they had intentionally evaded - a procedure which has caused the petitioners serious health disorders and huge financial losses.
In this respect the Court has ruled that a penalty in this field is compatible with the principle of proportionality only in so far as it is made necessary by overriding requirements of enforcement and prevention, when gravity of the infringement is taken into account, and that in cases where determination of the arrangements applicable has given rise to difficulties, account must be taken of the good faith of the offender when determining the penalty actually imposed on him or her.
In this respect the Court has ruled that a penalty in this field is compatible with the principle of proportionality only in so far as it is made necessary by overriding requirements of enforcement and prevention, when gravity of the infringement is taken into account, and that in cases where determination of the arrangements applicable has given rise to difficulties, account must be taken of the good faith of the offender when determining the penalty actually imposed on him or her.
The European Parliament considers consequently that the decisions of the Greek courts to impose administrative penalties, which amount to many times the original purchase price of the vehicles, are incompatible with the principles of the free movement of goods and persons, and that national administrative penalties are only compatible with Community law to the extent that they do not present an obstacle to the exercise of the freedoms guaranteed by the Treatis.
The European Parliament considers consequently that the decisions of the Greek courts to impose administrative penalties, which amount to many times the original purchase price of the vehicles, are incompatible with the principles of the free movement of goods and persons, and that national administrative penalties are only compatible with Community law to the extent that they do not present an obstacle to the exercise of the freedoms guaranteed by the Treatis.
National provisions on the basis of which a fine can be imposed which amounts to many times the original purchase price of the article in a different Member State are certainly a suitable means of preventing tax evasion and of deterring potential perpetrators from such a contravention.
National provisions on the basis of which a fine can be imposed which amounts to many times the original purchase price of the article in a different Member State are certainly a suitable means of preventing tax evasion and of deterring potential perpetrators from such a contravention.
The fines the Greek authorities have imposed on the petitioners consist of three parts: double the amount of the duties due, a fine determined by reference to cubic capacity and a flat rate fine.
The fines the Greek authorities have imposed on the petitioners consist of three parts: double the amount of the duties due, a fine determined by reference to cubic capacity and a flat rate fine.
The Greek authorities have in none of the cases mentioned by the petitioners taken the age of the vehicle into account, and the European Parliament endorses the view of the petitioners, that the increased duty which can amount up to ten times the taxes in question is incompatible with the Community principle of proportionality.
The Greek authorities have in none of the cases mentioned by the petitioners taken the age of the vehicle into account, and the European Parliament endorses the view of the petitioners, that the increased duty which can amount up to ten times the taxes in question is incompatible with the Community principle of proportionality.
Where determination of the arrangements applicable has given rise to difficulties, account must be taken of the good faith of the offender
Where determination of the arrangements applicable has given rise to difficulties, account must be taken of the good faith of the offender
In the light of the purpose of the directive, which is to promote the freedoms guaranteed by the Treaties, account must be taken of the good faith of the offender when determining the penalty actually imposed on him, where determination of the rules applicable has given rise to difficulties.
In the light of the purpose of the directive, which is to promote the freedoms guaranteed by the Treaties, account must be taken of the good faith of the offender when determining the penalty actually imposed on him, where determination of the rules applicable has given rise to difficulties.
The severity of the penalties imposed is therefore especially problematic in the case of the petitioners who think, in good faith, that they must be considered residents in another Member State, whereas the Greek authorities consider, on the contrary, that they are residents in Greece.
The severity of the penalties imposed is therefore especially problematic in the case of the petitioners who think, in good faith, that they must be considered residents in another Member State, whereas the Greek authorities consider, on the contrary, that they are residents in Greece.
In these cases the petitioners have been punished with a severity which neither seems justified nor proportionate.
In these cases the petitioners have been punished with a severity which neither seems justified nor proportionate.
It must be said that the Greek legislation in this field was changed with effect from 1 January 2002.
It must be said that the Greek legislation in this field was changed with effect from 1 January 2002.
The new legislation provided for a reduction in the degree of severity of the penalties imposed in case of infringement of Directive 83/182/EEC.
The new legislation provided for a reduction in the degree of severity of the penalties imposed in case of infringement of Directive 83/182/EEC.
However, the penalties seem still to be disproportionate and there are considerable problems which have not been solved, for instance the fact that the Greek authorities consider that the directive is not applicable as from 1 January 1993.
However, the penalties seem still to be disproportionate and there are considerable problems which have not been solved, for instance the fact that the Greek authorities consider that the directive is not applicable as from 1 January 1993.
Beyond that, the problem of the confiscation of vehicles seems to remain, since the new legislation still provides for this penalty.
Beyond that, the problem of the confiscation of vehicles seems to remain, since the new legislation still provides for this penalty.
An action against Greece was consequently brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 March 2004 by the European Commission (Case C-156/04).
An action against Greece was consequently brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 March 2004 by the European Commission (Case C-156/04).
The European Commission considers that Greece has not fulfilled its obligations under Article 90 of the EC Treaty according to which no Member State shall impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products or any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products, and for infringement of Directive 83/182/EEC on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another.
The European Commission considers that Greece has not fulfilled its obligations under Article 90 of the EC Treaty according to which no Member State shall impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products or any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products, and for infringement of Directive 83/182/EEC on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another.
In its main arguments the Commission underlines further, that determination of normal residence is a precondition for the imposition of penalties, and that a multiple tax results in being disproportionate to the gravity of the offence which concerns the temporary movement of vehicles in a Member State, and constitutes consequently a restriction on freedoms laid down by the Treaties and impedes the free movement of the residents of the Community in infringement of Directive 83/182/EEC.
In its main arguments the Commission underlines further, that determination of normal residence is a precondition for the imposition of penalties, and that a multiple tax results in being disproportionate to the gravity of the offence which concerns the temporary movement of vehicles in a Member State, and constitutes consequently a restriction on freedoms laid down by the Treaties and impedes the free movement of the residents of the Community in infringement of Directive 83/182/EEC.
However, because this matter is, at the time of adoption of the report still before the Greek Courts, references have been removed from the resolution accordingly.
However, because this matter is, at the time of adoption of the report still before the Greek Courts, references have been removed from the resolution accordingly.
It should in this context be pointed out, that the vast number of seizures, confiscations and selling's by auction of the vehicles concerned and the loss for the petitioners for many years are incompatible with the principles of the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights and particularly contrary to the right of property and the freedom of movement, and that the petitioners have a right to be compensated accordingly.
It should in this context be pointed out, that the vast number of seizures, confiscations and selling's by auction of the vehicles concerned and the loss for the petitioners for many years are incompatible with the principles of the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights and particularly contrary to the right of property and the freedom of movement, and that the petitioners have a right to be compensated accordingly.
Although the question goes beyond the scope of this report, it is nevertheless appropriate to mention, that the European Parliament has received a large number of petitions concerning exorbitant and disproportionate taxation in a number of Member States of permanent import of cars following change of residence.
Although the question goes beyond the scope of this report, it is nevertheless appropriate to mention, that the European Parliament has received a large number of petitions concerning exorbitant and disproportionate taxation in a number of Member States of permanent import of cars following change of residence.
An increasing number of complaints by citizens and the car trade have also been lodged with the European Commission, and cases have been brought before the Court of Justice.
An increasing number of complaints by citizens and the car trade have also been lodged with the European Commission, and cases have been brought before the Court of Justice.
The Community legislation applicable in these cases is directive 83/183/EEC on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals.
The Community legislation applicable in these cases is directive 83/183/EEC on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the personal property of individuals.
The fact that 25 different vehicle tax systems are operating within the EU has resulted in tax obstacles, distortions and inefficiencies, and from an internal market point of view the car market in the EU is thus still a long way from a true single market
The fact that 25 different vehicle tax systems are operating within the EU has resulted in tax obstacles, distortions and inefficiencies, and from an internal market point of view the car market in the EU is thus still a long way from a true single market
A study has been carried out for the Commission on vehicle taxation in the Member States of the EU and is available at the internet site:
A study has been carried out for the Commission on vehicle taxation in the Member States of the EU and is available at the internet site:
From the petitioner's viewpoint, the notion of a single market implies freedom to move between Member States and buy a car in the Member State of his choice, and to pay purchase-related taxes in that State.
From the petitioner's viewpoint, the notion of a single market implies freedom to move between Member States and buy a car in the Member State of his choice, and to pay purchase-related taxes in that State.
The citizens, who addressed themselves to the European Parliament by submitting a petition, expected understandably that the levels of registration taxation of cars would be approximated and that problems associated with movement - either temporary or permanent - between Member Stats would disappear.
The citizens, who addressed themselves to the European Parliament by submitting a petition, expected understandably that the levels of registration taxation of cars would be approximated and that problems associated with movement - either temporary or permanent - between Member Stats would disappear.
Petitions submitted to the European Parliament on confiscation of vehicles by the Greek authorities:
Petitions submitted to the European Parliament on confiscation of vehicles by the Greek authorities:
0329/1994 by Siegfried Klattner
0329/1994 by Siegfried Klattner
0332/1994 by Dimitrios Mastorakis
0332/1994 by Dimitrios Mastorakis
0879/1995 by Georg Papalambros
0879/1995 by Georg Papalambros
1154/1995 by Frank Röwe
1154/1995 by Frank Röwe
0632/1997 by Panagiota Damouli
0632/1997 by Panagiota Damouli
0659/1999 by Dakis Galentzas
0659/1999 by Dakis Galentzas
0104/2001 by Periklis Kolioulis
0104/2001 by Periklis Kolioulis
0594/2002 by Paraskevas Louloudakis
0594/2002 by Paraskevas Louloudakis
0597/2002 by Petros Papadopoulos
0597/2002 by Petros Papadopoulos
0083/2003 by Nikolaos Adamopoulos
0083/2003 by Nikolaos Adamopoulos
1233/2003 by Ioannis Lambros
1233/2003 by Ioannis Lambros
1257/2003 by Mario Vogna
1257/2003 by Mario Vogna
0054/2004 by Christos Rinis
0054/2004 by Christos Rinis
0049/2005 by Anna Zecchino
0049/2005 by Anna Zecchino
0057/2005 by Anastasios Theodoridis
0057/2005 by Anastasios Theodoridis
0060/2005 by Konstantinos Iatrou
0060/2005 by Konstantinos Iatrou
0061/2005 by Carola Lemke-Leontoglou
0061/2005 by Carola Lemke-Leontoglou
0064/2005 by Christina Tsichlaki
0064/2005 by Christina Tsichlaki
0094/2005 by Studio Fiorentino
0094/2005 by Studio Fiorentino
0171/2005 by Viviana Dolcetti
0171/2005 by Viviana Dolcetti
0242/2005 by Regina Vecchi
0242/2005 by Regina Vecchi
0397/2005 by Georgios Kourmouzas
0397/2005 by Georgios Kourmouzas
0547/2005 by Keith Salter
0547/2005 by Keith Salter
0629/2005 by Klaus Schirmer
0629/2005 by Klaus Schirmer
0661/2005 by Christos Krikonas
0661/2005 by Christos Krikonas
Zpráva ke konfiskaci automobilů řeckými orgány
Report on Confiscation of automobiles by the Greek Authorities
Robert Atkins, Ines Sender Ayala, Alessandro Battilochio, Michael Cashman, David Mintz Hammerstein, Roger Helmer, Angulo Carlos Iturgaiz, Marcin Libicki, David Martin, Manolis Mavrommatis, Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, Willy Meyer Pleite, Luciana Sbarbati, Rainer Wieland
Robert Atkins, Ines Sender Ayala, Alessandro Battilochio, Michael Cashman, David Mintz Hammerstein, Roger Helmer, Angulo Carlos Iturgaiz, Marcin Libicki, David Martin, Manolis Mavrommatis, Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, Willy Meyer Pleite, Luciana Sbarbati, Rainer Wieland
Herbert Bosch, Sarah Ludford, Antonio Masip Hidalgo
Herbert Bosch, Sarah Ludford, Antonio Masip Hidalgo
NÁVRH ROZHODNUTÍ EVROPSKÉHO PARLAMENTU......................................................3
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION...................................................3
PŘÍLOHA: ROZHODNUTÍ EVROPSKÉHO PARLAMENTU A RADY.............................5
ANNEX: DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL..............4
STANOVISKO Výboru pro rozvoj .................................................................................7
OPINION of the Committee on Development .............................................................6
k návrhu rozhodnutí Evropského parlamentu a Rady o využití nástroje pro flexibilitu na vnější akce Evropské unie podle bodu 24 interinstitucionální dohody ze dne 6. května 1999
on the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on the mobilisation of the flexibility instrument in favour of the European Union's external actions according to point 24 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999.
– s ohledem na návrh Komise Evropskému parlamentu a Radě o využití nástroje pro flexibilitu na obnovu a přestavbu zemí postižených tsunami podle bodu 24 interinstitucionální dohody ze dne 6. května 1999 ( KOM(2005)0278 – C6-0211/2005 )
– having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and to the Council on the mobilisation of the flexibility instrument in favour of the rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance to Tsunami affected countries according to point 24 of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 6 May 1999( COM(2005)0278 – C6-0211/2005 )
Dosud nezveřejněný v Úředním věstníku pozměněný Komisí dne 1. prosince 2005,
Not yet published in OJ. as amended by the Commission on the 1 December 2005,
– s ohledem na návrh na změnu č. 1/2005 předběžného návrhu rozpočtu na rok 2006 SEK(2005)1269 ,
- having regard to amending letter n° 1/2005 to the Preliminary Draft Budget for 2006 SEC(2005)1269