C-127/86 Ledoux

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 July 1988. - Ministère public and Ministre des Finances du royaume de Belgique v Yves Ledoux. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Cour d'appel de Liège - Belgium. - Value-added tax - Temporary importation of a motor vehicle for business and private use. - Case 127/86. European Court reports 1988 Page 03741

Summary Parties Grounds Decision on costs Operative part

++++

Tax provisions - Harmonization of laws - Turnover tax - Common system of value-added tax - Exemptions provided for in the Sixth Directive - Exemption for temporary importation - Temporary importation by a frontier worker, for business and private use, of a motor vehicle belonging to his employer - Levying of tax - Not permissible

( Council Directive 77/388, Art . 14 ¹ ( c ) )

Where there is no indication of tax evasion, abuse or avoidance, a Member State cannot refuse to grant the exemption provided for in respect of temporary imports under Article 14 ¹ ( c ) of the Sixth Directive on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes

( Directive 77/388 ) where a motor vehicle belonging to an employer established in another Member State in which value-added tax has been paid is used by a frontier worker residing in the first Member State for the performance of his duties under his contract of employment and secondarily for leisure purposes .

In Case 127/86

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the cour d' appel ( Court of Appeal ), Liège, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

Ministère public ( Public Prosecutor )

Ministre des finances du Royaume de Belgique ( Minister for Finance of the Kingdom of Belgium )

v

Yves Ledoux,

on the interpretation of the Community rules concerning taxation, and in particular the rules concerning value-added tax, in order to determine whether Belgian legislation on value-added tax is consistent with the provisions of Community law,

THE COURT ( Fourth Chamber )

composed of : G.C . Rodríguez Iglesias, President of the Chamber, T . Koopmans and C . Kakouris, Judges,

Advocate General : J . Mischo

Registrar : B . Pastor, Administrator

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of

the Minister for Finance of the Kingdom of Belgium, the plaintiff in the main proceedings, by J . Herbiet, avocat, and Mr Neckebroeck, acting as Agent, during the oral procedure,

the Danish Government, by L . Mikaelsen, Legal Adviser, during the written and oral procedures,

the Commission of the European Communities, by H . Etienne, Principal Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, during the written and oral procedures,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing and further to the hearing on 10 December 1987,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General delivered at the sitting on 9 February 1988,

gives the following

Judgment

Grounds

1By a judgment of 12 March 1986, which was received at the Court on 26 May 1986, the cour d' appel, Liège, referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a question on the intepretation of the Community rules on value-added tax ( hereinafter referred to as "VAT ") in order to be able to determine the consistency with those rules of the Belgian legislation on VAT .

2The question arose in the context of criminal proceedings brought by the Ministère public and the Ministry of Finance of the Kingdom of Belgium against Yves Ledoux, a frontier worker residing in Belgium and employed by a company established in France . That company had provided him with a car, belonging to it and registered in France, on which VAT had been paid . Under his contract of employment, Mr Ledoux used that car for the performance of his duties under the said contract and for leisure purposes .

3The Belgian customs and excise authorities have long tolerated the use by a frontier worker resident in Belgium of a vehicle placed at his disposal by his employer, established in another Member State, for the purpose of travelling from his place of work to his home in Belgium . That practice was approved by a circular of the Belgian administration of 1 May 1984 . However, the circular in question covers only the use of the car for the purpose of travelling to work, to the exclusion of all other use for private purposes .

4Questioned on 22 February 1983 as he crossed the frontier at a point other than that which he used to go to work, Mr Ledoux was charged with having unlawfully imported a motor vehicle, which is punishable by either the confiscation of the vehicle or payment of its value .

5Having decided that Mr Ledoux' s case was not covered by specific rules, the tribunal correctionnel ( Criminal Court ), Neufchâteau, acquitted him . The Minister for Finance lodged an appeal before the cour d' appel, Liège, against that decision and in order to resolve that dispute, the latter court stayed the proceedings and referred the following question to the Court of Justice :

"Do the Community rules concerning taxation, and in particular the rules concerning value-added tax, permit the Belgian State, under the Law of 3 July 1969 establishing the Value-Added Tax Code and the decrees implementing that Law and in accordance with the interpretation of its provisions by the Minister for Finance of the Kingdom of Belgium, in proceedings brought against Yves Ledoux, residing at 32 rue Leroy, Marcinelle, to levy value-added tax on a motor vehicle which is owned by a company incorporated under French law with its registered office in France and is subject to value-added tax in France, where the tax has been paid, in so far as the vehicle is used by an employee of the company, who is resident in Belgium, for the performance of his duties under his contract of employment and for leisure purposes, taking account of the fact that the vehicle remains the property of the French employer and that the importation into Belgium is only temporary and of a provisional nature?"

6Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the facts in the main proceedings, the Community and national provisions at issue, the course of the procedure and the observations submitted to the Court, which are mentioned or discussed hereinafter only in so far as is necessary for the reasoning of the Court .

7It must be pointed out that when the facts at issue in the main proceedings took place, Council Directive 83/182 of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another ( Official Journal L 105, p . 59 ) had not yet been adopted . Consequently, the applicable Community rules were contained in the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 ( Directive 75/388 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value-added tax : uniform basis of assessment, Official Journal L 145, p . 1 ), hereinafter referred to as "the Sixth Directive ".

8The question put by the national court seeks to determine whether that directive prevents a Member State from levying VAT when a motor vehicle belonging to an employer established in another Member State, in which VAT has been paid, is used by a frontier worker residing in the first Member State for the performance of his duties under his contract of employment and for leisure purposes .

9Article 14 ¹ of the Sixth Directive provides that, without prejudice to other Community provisions, Member States are to exempt under conditions which they are to lay down for the purpose of ensuring the correct and straightforward application of the exemptions provided for and of preventing any possible evasion, avoidance or abuse, inter alia, the importation of goods declared to be under temporary importation arrangements . Article 14 ² provides for the subsequent laying down of Community tax rules clarifying the scope of the exemptions referred to in paragraph 1 and detailed rules for their implementation . Until the entry into force of those rules, the Member States may maintain their national provisions in force on matters related to the provisions of the directive or adapt them in order to minimize, in particular, double imposition of value-added tax within the Community .

10In the light of those provisions, the conditions required by the legislation of the Member States for granting exemption from VAT for vehicles imported under temporary arrangements must take account, on the one hand, of the objectives of harmonization of the rules relating to VAT which are, as is indicated in the recitals in the preamble to the Sixth Directive, the abolition of the imposition of tax on imports and the remission of tax on exports, further progress in the effective removal of restrictions on the movement of persons and goods and the integration of national economies and, on the other hand, the objective of preventing evasion, avoidance or abuse in cases of temporary importation .

11It should be pointed out in that regard, as the Court decided in its judgment of 3 October 1985 ( Case 249/84 Ministère public v Profant (( 1985 )) ECR 3237 ), that the authorities of the Member States do not enjoy a complete discretion in implementing the exemptions for imports under Article 14 of the Sixth Directive, for they must observe the fundamental objectives of the harmonization of value-added tax, such as, in particular, the encouragement of free movement of persons and goods and the prevention of double taxation . It follows that Article 14 of the Sixth Directive must be interpreted in the light of all of the fundamental rules of the Community .

12In the light of those considerations, a Member State would infringe the general obligation to cooperate imposed on the Member States by Article 5 of the Treaty if it contributed, through a national measure, to the maintenance or introduction of an obstacle to the free movement of workers who, although residing on its territory, pursue their occupations in another Member State .

13In order to consider whether such might be the case in the circumstances set out in the question referred to the Court, the case of the use for business purposes of a motor vehicle by a frontier worker residing in the Member State of importation must first be considered .

14It should be observed in that regard that when the Member States lay down the conditions for exemption from VAT in cases of temporary importation, provided for under Article 14 ¹ ( c ), they must respect the aim of the exemption for temporary imports .

15The mere fact that the vehicle has been imported into the country of residence of the user does not cause such importation to cease to be temporary where the vehicle has been placed at the disposal of the frontier worker by his employer for the duration of his contract of employment, belongs to the employer, who is established in a neighbouring Member State in which VAT has been paid, is regularly re-exported to that Member State and will definitively return there not later than upon the termination of the contract of employment with the frontier worker and where, on the other hand, there is no indication of tax evasion, abuse or avoidance .

16It is true that the Court, in its judgments of 9 October 1980 ( Case 823/79 Carciati (( 1980 )) ECR 2773 ) and of 11 December 1984, ( Case 134/83 Abbink (( 1984 )) ECR 4097 ), decided that in granting an exemption from VAT in respect of the temporary importation of a motor vehicle, the importing Member State is entitled to require, as a condition of the exemption, that the importer should not reside on its territory . That rule is justified by the fact that it is generally the resident of the Member State of importation who, being usually also the owner of the vehicle, imports it permanently for his personal use . However, that justification does not apply when a frontier resident of a Member State, without being the owner of the vehicle, actually imports it temporarily in the course of his employment .

17It now remains to consider cases in which the contract of employment of a frontier worker permits him to use the temporarily imported motor vehicle not only for the purposes of his employment, but also for private purposes .

18It should be observed in that regard that private use, being ancillary to business use and provided for in the contract of employment, and thus forming from an economic point of view part of the worker' s remuneration, must be subject to the same conditions as business use . If it were not, frontier workers would be effectively prevented from benefiting from certain advantages granted to them by their employers merely because they resided in the Member State into which the vehicle was temporarily imported . Such workers would thereby be placed at a disadvantage in regard to working conditions compared to their colleagues residing in the country of their employer, which would have a direct effect on the exercise of their right to free movement within the Community .

19It is for the national court to decide in each case whether a use which is not strictly a business use is ancillary to the business use, on the basis of all the relevant factors in each case .

20The reply to the question referred to the Court by the cour d' appel, Liège, must therefore be that the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 ( Directive 77/388 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value-added tax : uniform basis of assessment ) prevents a Member State from levying value-added tax on a motor vehicle which is owned by an employer established in another Member State where value-added tax has been paid, and which is used by a frontier worker residing in the first Member State for the performance of his duties under his contract of employment and, secondarily, for leisure purposes .

Costs

Costs

21The costs incurred by the Belgian Government, the Danish Government and the Commission of the European Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable . As these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main proceedings are concerned, a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, the decision as to costs is a matter for that court .

Operative part

On those grounds,

THE COURT ( Fourth Chamber )

in answer to the question referred to it by the cour d' appel, Liège, by judgment of 12 March 1986, hereby rules :

The Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 ( Directive 77/388 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value-added tax : uniform basis of assessment ) prevents a Member State from levying value-added tax on a motor vehicle which is owned by an employer established in another Member State where value-added tax has been paid, and which is used by a frontier worker residing in the first Member State for the performance of his duties under his contract of employment and, secondarily, for leisure purposes .

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL MISCHO delivered on 9 February 1988 * Mr President, Members of the Court,

1Mr Ledoux, the defendant in the main proceedings, was charged with having unlawfully imported into Belgium, the country in which he resides, a motor vehicle registered in France and belonging to the French company which employs him, on the basis that on 22 February 1983 he used the vehicle away from the route he took when travelling to work, that is to say, he used it for private purposes. It can be seen from the file that the said vehicle was placed at the disposal of the accused under the terms of his contract of employment and he was entitled to use it both for his work and for leisure purposes.

2It appears that at the material time there was a practice in Belgium, which has been subsequently officially authorized by a circular of the Belgian Customs and Excise Department of 1 May 1984, permitting frontier workers normally resident in Belgium to use a vehicle placed at their disposal by an employer established in another Member State on the Belgian part of the journey from their homes to their foreign workplace. However, that practice did not cover the secondary use of such a vehicle for private purposes.

3The question which the cour d'appel (Court of Appeal), Liège, before which the dispute in the main proceedings was brought after the tribunal correctionnel (Criminal Court), Neufchâteau, had acquitted Mr Ledoux, has referred to the Court seeks essentially to know whether the Community rules, in particular those

* Translated from the French.

3746 dealing with VAT, permit a Member State to require payment of the VAT due upon importation where a resident uses, for the performance of his duties under his contract of employment and for leisure purposes, a vehicle placed at his disposal by his employer, who is established in another Member State in which VAT has been paid, the vehicle remaining the property of the said employer and the importation into the user's country of residence being merely temporary.

4The particular Community rules applicable at the material time were those in the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 (Directive 77/388 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value-added tax: uniform basis of assessment) (Official Journal L 145, p. 1).

5Since then, Council Directive 83/182 of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another (Official Journal L 105, p. 59) was adopted and came into effect on 1 January 1984. Obviously, I can refer to that text only incidentally and can use it only as a source of interest in the reasoning which must be constructed on the basis of the law applicable at the material time. Furthermore, Directive 83/182 does not provide for tax exemption in regard to temporary importations of the kind at issue here. However, on 4 February 1987, the Commission submitted a proposal to the Council for an amendment to Directive 83/182, inserting in it a provision covering that situation (Official Journal C 40 of 18 February 1987, p. 7).

6Article 2 of the Sixth Directive provides as follows:

'The following shall be subject to value-added tax:

(1) ...;

(2) the importation of goods'.

7Article 10 (3) provides that as regards imported goods, 'the chargeable event shall occur and the tax shall become chargeable at the time when goods enter the territory of the country ..." (subparagraph 1), except where goods are placed under arrangements for temporary admission (subparagraph 4).

8Unlike what occurs in regard to the 'supply of goods' within the country, which requires 'the transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner' (Article 5 (1)), it is therefore in principle the mere physical fact of importation, that is to say the entry of the goods into the country, which gives rise to VAT liability. Whether the person importing the goods is the owner or the user thereof is irrelevant. Under Article 21 (2) the person liable to pay tax on importation is 'the person or persons designated or accepted as being liable by the Member States into which the goods are imported'.

9However, those who drafted the Sixth Directive manifestly regarded the mere physical fact of importation as too rigid because in Article 14, they provided for exemptions from VAT on importation. In particular, Article 14 (1) provides that:

'Without prejudice to other Community provisions, Member States shall exempt the following under conditions which they shall lay down for the purpose of ensuring the correct and straightforward application of such exemption and of preventing any possible evasion, avoidance or abuse:

(c) importation of goods declared to be under temporary importation arrangements, which thereby qualify for exemption from customs duties, or which would so qualify if they were imported from a third country;

...'.

10Article 14 (2) adds that until the entry into force of Community tax rules clarifying the scope of the said exemptions and the detailed rules for their implementation,

'Member States may:

— maintain their national provisions in force on matters related to the above provisions, — adapt their national provisions to minimize distortion of competition and in particular the non-imposition or double imposition of value-added tax within the Community,

— use whatever administrative procedures they consider most appropriate to achieve exemption.'

11The Court was called upon to interpret those provisions on three occasions, in its judgments in Carciati 1, Abbink and Profant. 3

12. was concerned with a situation Cardati very different from that of Mr Ledoux inasmuch as the vehicle was not re-exported every day to the Member State in which was situated the undertaking which owned it but seems to have been used semi-permanently in the country of residence of the user.

13In Abbink, too, a return journey was not made every day. Furthermore, in both of those cases the Court considered the problem in the light only of the principles of the Treaty concerning the free movement of goods, as was required by the terms of the questions referred to it.

14In its judgment in Profant, the most recent case on the subject, the Court

3748 considered the problem of exemptions in a wider context.

15After noting that according to Article 14, the national provisions in question were to be maintained in force 'on matters related to' the exemptions provided for by the Community rules and were to be adapted to minimize cases of double imposition of value-added tax within the Community, the Court added that those requirements had in turn to be viewed in the light of one of the objectives of the harmonization of value-added tax which is, as stated in one of the recitals in the preamble to the Sixth Directive, to make further progress in the effective removal of restrictions on the movement of persons and goods and the integration of national economies.

16The Court concluded that those considerations showed that 'the authorities of the Member States do not enjoy a complete discretion in implementing the exemptions under Article 14 of the Sixth Council Directive, for they have to observe the fundamental objectives of the harmonization of value-added tax such as, in particular, to facilitate the free movement of persons and goods and to prevent cases of double taxation. It follows that in applying their national provisions on exemptions from value-added tax to motor vehicles used by students from another Member State the tax authorities of a Member State are required to apply the concept of temporary importation in such a way as to avoid derogating, by taxing their vehicles twice, from the freedom of nationals of Member States to pursue their studies in the Member State of their choice' (paragraphs 24 to 26). The Court concluded that in such a case, the rules of Community law preclude the levying by a Member State of value-added tax on importation.

17I consider that the reasoning used in Profant may be transposed to the problem before the Court in this case. It is true that Mr Profant, unlike Mr Ledoux, did not have his principal residence in the country of importation. It is also true that the Court expressly added that the result would have been otherwise if the person in question, who had got married in the interim, and his wife 'settled in the host Member State in such a way as to manifest their intention of not returning to the Member State of origin' (paragraph 27). In such a situation, the importation would no longer be temporary but would become definitive.

18However, it can be argued that in this case the fact that the car is imported into Mr Ledoux's country of residence does not prevent the importation from being temporary since the car continues to be the property of the employer established in the neighbouring country, is regularly re-exported to that country and will return there definitively not later than upon the termination of Mr Ledoux's contract of employment.

19Since the importation of the goods, regardless of who imports them, constitutes the chargeable event in regard to VAT, its temporary nature should, of itself, be sufficient to justify the exemption.

20If a market 'resembling a real internal market' (fourth recital in the preamble to the Sixth Directive) is to be achieved, double taxation is in fact quite inconceivable in such a situation. Nevertheless, double taxation subsists in principle even in cases (such as this one) where in practice, in accordance with the judgments in Schul I4 and 5no VAT may be collected in Schul II, the importing country because the rate of VAT applicable there is lower than that applicable in the exporting country.

21On the other hand, there is no double taxation and an exemption in the country of temporary importation would not be justified if VAT had not been paid in the exporting country or if it had been reimbursed.

22It is therefore quite correct for both Directive 83/182, cited above, (last recital in the preamble and Article 4 (1) (c)) and Directive 85/362 on the temporary importation of goods other than means of transport (Seventeenth Council Directive of 16 July 1985, Official Journal L 192, p. 20, Article 10 (c)) to make the exemption subject to an express condition that the goods have been liable to VAT in the exporting Member State and have not benefited, by virtue of their exportation, from any exemption from VAT.

23On the other hand, it must be established that the vehicle was actually placed at the disposal of the worker by his employer, that is to say, that this is not a case of fraud such as false registration of a vehicle in a neighbouring country whereas it in fact belongs to the user. However, proof of the ownership of the vehicle by the employer may be established by fairly simply administrative techniques.

24Furthermore, I regard it as revealing that for temporary imports of goods other than means of transport, Article 10 (d) of Council Directive 85/362, cited above, requires that the goods in question should 'belong to a person established outside the territory of the Member State of importation'.

25It should also be noted for Directive 83/182 did not deal with all imaginable and possible cases of temporary importation of motor vehicles and certainly does not constitute the final stage of development in that matter. To prove my point, I would refer to Article 9 (1) of that directive which permits the Member States to maintain and/or introduce more liberal arrangements than those provided for in the directive and to the Commission's proposal for supplementary provisions to which I referred at the beginning.

26There is thus no imperative reason inherent in the requirements of the common system of VAT to make the grant of exemptions for the temporary importation of motor vehicles subject in this sort of situation to a condition that the user has his normal residence in a Member State other than that into which the vehicle is being imported.

27In the second place, it should be borne in mind that the exemptions provided for in Article 14 of the Sixth Directive should be granted by the Member States 'without prejudice to other Community provisions' while continuing to respect the fundamental aim of promoting free movement of persons.

28Let me draw attention to the third and fourth recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers

3750 within the Community (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), which state expressly that:

'. .. freedom of movement constitutes a fundamental right of workers and their families (which) must be enjoyed without discrimination by permanent, seasonal and frontier workers and by those who pursue their activities for the purpose of providing services'.

The fifth recital in the preamble adds that:

'. . . the right of freedom of movement, in order that it may be exercised, by objective standards, in freedom and dignity, requires that equality of treatment shall be ensured in fact and in law in respect of all matters relating to the actual pursuit of activities as employed persons. .. and also that obstacles to the mobility of workers shall be eliminated.'

29Furthermore, under Article 5 of the Treaty, the Member States have a general obligation to take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of the Community, to faciliate the achievement of the Community's tasks and to abstain from any measure which could jeopardize the attainment of the objectives of the Treaty.

30A Member State infringes that general obligation to cooperate if, by adopting a national measure, it contributes to the maintenance or introduction of an obstacle to free movement of workers who, although residing on its territory, exercise their activities in another Member State.

31That is what a Member State does if, by charging VAT twice, it obliges a frontier worker in practice to give up certain advantages granted to him by his employer solely on the ground that the worker has his residence on that State's territory. The worker is thus placed at a disadvantage in regard to working conditions compared to his colleagues residing in the country in which their employer is established and having the benefit of the same advantage in kind. The attraction of employment in a Member State other than that in which he has his residence is thereby diminished, which directly affects the exercise of his right to freedom of movement within the Community.

32The same reasoning holds good when the employer also permits the vehicle to be used for private purposes. It may be considered in that case that that is part of the remuneration, in the broadest sense, paid to the worker. Furthermore, such an advantage in kind may well, in certain cases, be compensated for by a salary slightly lower than would be paid to workers who did not enjoy it.

33The Commission correctly emphasizes on page 10 of its written observations that 'part of the remuneration paid to a worker residing in another Member State would in fact be rendered useless by the legislation of the country of residence, whereas in regard to the country of employment there is complete equality of remuneration between residents and non-residents, as is required by Article 48 of the Treaty and provided for in detail by Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68 on free movement of workers within the Community'.

34It is interesting to note in this context that all those who benefit under Article 4 of Directive 83/182 from an exemption for the use in the course of their work of a vehicle of which they are the proprietor do not lose that exemption if, at the end of their day's work, they use the vehicle for private purposes (for example, to go to a restaurant or to the beach). I therefore consider that there is no real reason to deny a worker in the position of Mr Ledoux the right to use the vehicle placed at his disposal by his employer under the terms of his contract of employment for private purposes.

35As the Court has already seen, the Belgian authorities were perfectly well aware of the problem of the use by a frontier worker of a vehicle placed at his disposal by his employer to travel from his home to his place of work because they first tolerated, then officially permitted that use on a trial basis with effect from 1 May 1984. Furthermore, the circular of 1 May 1984 issued by the Belgian customs authorities has the merit of dealing also with the case in which several workers are driven back to the country in which they live in a staff transport vehicle which remains overnight in that country.

36For the reasons set out above, I consider that those rules should have been introduced on a definitive basis and not merely on a trial basis (with the possibility of withdrawing them without notice, see page 7 of the circular of 1 May 1984) and that it should not have been possible to withdraw the benefit of those exemptions if the vehicle was used secondarily for private purposes.

Conclusion

37For all of those reasons, I propose that the Court should reply as follows to the question referred to it by the cour d'appel, Liège:

'The rules of Community law, in particular those dealing with value-added tax, prevent a Member State from collecting value-added tax on the temporary importation of a motor vehicle belonging to an employer established in another Member State in which value-added tax has been paid when the vehicle is used by an employee residing in the first Member State under the terms of his contract of employment and for leisure purposes.'

Notes

(1) Judgment of 9 October 1980 in Case 823/79 Carciati [1980] ECR 2773.

(2) Judgment of 11 December 1984 in Case 134/83 Abbink [1984] ECR 4097.

(3) Judgment of 3 October 1985 in Case 249/84 Ministère public vProfant [1985] ECR 3237.

(4) Judgment of 5 May 1982 in Case 15/81 Schul y Inspecteur des droits d'importation et des accises [1982] ECR 1409.

(5) Judgment of 21 May 1985 ¡n Case 47/84 Secrétaire d'État aux Finances vSchul[1985] ECR 1491.