<s>[INST] The next text is a question of a member of the European parliament:"In the above case, the Commission versus the Kingdom of Denmark, the Court of Justice has ruled, inter alia, that Denmark should allow employees who are resident in Denmark and work in another Member State to use, for commercial and/or private purposes, a company vehicle — neither intended to be used essentially in Denmark on a permanent basis nor in fact used in that manner — which is registered in that other Member State in which the undertaking of their employer has its principal office or seat, on condition that the work for that employer is their main employment.  Does the Commission interpret this judgment in such a way that it may likewise be concluded that use of a privately owned motor vehicle is equivalent to use of a motor vehicle owned by the employer under the same conditions cited in the judgment? Can the judgment be used by analogy in circumstances where the employee is not only resident in Denmark but also abroad and resides there to carry out his work and the privately owned motor vehicle is used predominantly abroad in connection with that work?  How does the Commission interpret the judgment (first section) of the Court of Justice of 15September 2005 in Case NoC‑464/02?"
Analyze carefully the text and assign it to the most relevant policy area among those listed below. Do not explain your answer and return only a number.
Policy area numbers: 1 = Macroeconomics
2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties
3 = Health
4 = Agriculture and Fisheries
5 = Labour, employment and pensions
6 = Education
7 = Environment
8 = Energy
9 = Immigration
10 = Transportation
12 = Law and Crime
13 = Social welfare
14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning
15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues
16 = Defence
17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues
18 = Foreign trade
19 = International affairs and foreign aid
20 = Governance and government
21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues
23 = Culture and media
[/INST]. Answer = [10]. </s>
In the above case, the Commission versus the Kingdom of Denmark, the Court of Justice has ruled, inter alia, that Denmark should allow employees who are resident in Denmark and work in another Member State to use, for commercial and/or private purposes, a company vehicle — neither intended to be used essentially in Denmark on a permanent basis nor in fact used in that manner — which is registered in that other Member State in which the undertaking of their employer has its principal office or seat, on condition that the work for that employer is their main employment.  Does the Commission interpret this judgment in such a way that it may likewise be concluded that use of a privately owned motor vehicle is equivalent to use of a motor vehicle owned by the employer under the same conditions cited in the judgment? Can the judgment be used by analogy in circumstances where the employee is not only resident in Denmark but also abroad and resides there to carry out his work and the privately owned motor vehicle is used predominantly abroad in connection with that work?  How does the Commission interpret the judgment (first section) of the Court of Justice of 15September 2005 in Case NoC‑464/02?