Yesterday's cases of interest

There were quite a lot of interesting judgments delivered yesterday, so rather than choosing one or two cases, I will just gave a small summary of all of the interesting ones (see also the press releases):

  1. Case C-329/05, Finanzamt Dinslaken v. Meindl: Article 43 EC precluded a resident taxpayer from being refused, by the Member State of his residence, joint assessment to income tax with his spouse from whom he was not separated and who lived in another Member State, on the ground that that spouse received in that Member State both more than 10% of the household’s income and more than DEM 24 000, where the income received by that spouse in the second Member State was not there subject to income tax (no press release).

  2. Case C-370/05, Festersen: Article 56 EC precluded Danish legislation from laying down as a condition for acquiring an agricultural property the requirement that the acquirer take up fixed residence on that property. That interpretation of Article 56 EC would not be different where the agricultural property acquired did not constitute a viable farm and the residential building was situated in an urban zone (no press release).

  3. Case C-278/05, Robins and others: Member States were not required to finance rights to old-age benefits under supplementary pension schemes themselves in the event of the employer's insolvency (see this press release (pdf)).

  4. Case C-48/05, Adam Opel: the affixing by a third party of the Opel Logo on scale models of Opel vehicles did not necessarily constitute a prohibited use (see this press release (pdf)).

  5. Joined Cases C-403/04 P and C-405/04 P, Sumitomo Metal Industries v Commission, Case C-407/04 P, Dalmine v Commission and Case C-411/04 P, Salzgitter Mannesmann v Commission, in which the Court upheld the judgment of the Court Of First Instance penalising a cartel of steel tubes producers (see this press release (pdf)).