# C_2014202EN.01001301.xml

| 30.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/13

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingin hovioikeus (Finland) lodged on 22 April 2014 — Valev Visnapuu v Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Helsinki), Suomen Valtio — Tullihallitus

(Case C-198/14)

2014/C 202/15

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Referring court

Helsingin hovioikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Valev Visnapuu

Applicant:

Defendants: Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Helsinki), Suomen Valtio — Tullihallitus

Defendants:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the permissibility of the Finnish system of beverage packaging duty, under which beverage packaging duty is levied if the packaging is not part of a return system, to be examined in the light of Article 110 TFEU instead of Article 34 TFEU? The return system in question must be a deposit-based system under which the packer of the alcoholic beverages or the importer alone or in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Law on Waste or in the corresponding legislation of the Åland Islands takes care of the reuse or recycling of beverage packagings so that the packaging is refilled or recovered as raw material. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the permissibility of the Finnish system of beverage packaging duty, under which beverage packaging duty is levied if the packaging is not part of a return system, to be examined in the light of Article 110 TFEU instead of Article 34 TFEU? The return system in question must be a deposit-based system under which the packer of the alcoholic beverages or the importer alone or in accordance with the provisions laid down in the Law on Waste or in the corresponding legislation of the Åland Islands takes care of the reuse or recycling of beverage packagings so that the packaging is refilled or recovered as raw material.

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, is that system compatible with Articles 1(1), 7 and 15 of Directive 94/62/EC (1) when examined in combination with Article 110 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, is that system compatible with Articles 1(1), 7 and 15 of Directive 94/62/EC (1) when examined in combination with Article 110 TFEU?

1

| 3. | If the answer to Question 1 is negative, is that system compatible with Articles 1(1), 7 and 15 of Directive 94/62/EC when examined in combination with Article 34 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to Question 1 is negative, is that system compatible with Articles 1(1), 7 and 15 of Directive 94/62/EC when examined in combination with Article 34 TFEU?

| 4. | If the answer to Question 3 is negative, is the Finnish beverage packaging duty system to be regarded as authorised on the basis of Article 36 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to Question 3 is negative, is the Finnish beverage packaging duty system to be regarded as authorised on the basis of Article 36 TFEU?

| 5. | May the requirement that a person using alcoholic beverages for commercial or other business purposes needs a separate retail sale licence for his activity relating to imported alcoholic beverages, in a situation in which a Finnish buyer has purchased via the internet or another method of distance selling from a vendor in another Member State alcoholic beverages which the vendor transports to Finland, be regarded as concerning the existence of a monopoly or as part of the operation of a monopoly, so that the provisions of Article 34 TFEU are not therefore an impediment to it, but it is to be evaluated in the light of Article 37 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

5.

May the requirement that a person using alcoholic beverages for commercial or other business purposes needs a separate retail sale licence for his activity relating to imported alcoholic beverages, in a situation in which a Finnish buyer has purchased via the internet or another method of distance selling from a vendor in another Member State alcoholic beverages which the vendor transports to Finland, be regarded as concerning the existence of a monopoly or as part of the operation of a monopoly, so that the provisions of Article 34 TFEU are not therefore an impediment to it, but it is to be evaluated in the light of Article 37 TFEU?

| 6. | If the answer to Question 5 is affirmative, is that licence requirement in such a case compatible with the conditions laid down for State monopolies of a commercial character in Article 37 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

6.

If the answer to Question 5 is affirmative, is that licence requirement in such a case compatible with the conditions laid down for State monopolies of a commercial character in Article 37 TFEU?

| 7. | If the answer to Question 5 is negative and Article 34 TFEU is applicable to the case, is the Finnish system, under which, where alcoholic beverages are ordered from abroad via the internet or another means of distance selling, their import for personal consumption is permitted only if the person ordering the goods or a person unconnected to the vendor transported the alcoholic beverages into Finland, and under which a licence in accordance with the Law on Alcohol is otherwise required for the import, a quantitative restriction on imports or a measure having equivalent effect contrary to Article 34 TFEU? |
| --- | --- |

7.

If the answer to Question 5 is negative and Article 34 TFEU is applicable to the case, is the Finnish system, under which, where alcoholic beverages are ordered from abroad via the internet or another means of distance selling, their import for personal consumption is permitted only if the person ordering the goods or a person unconnected to the vendor transported the alcoholic beverages into Finland, and under which a licence in accordance with the Law on Alcohol is otherwise required for the import, a quantitative restriction on imports or a measure having equivalent effect contrary to Article 34 TFEU?

| 8. | If the answer to the preceding question is affirmative, can the system be considered justified and proportionate in order to protect the health and life of humans? |
| --- | --- |

8.

If the answer to the preceding question is affirmative, can the system be considered justified and proportionate in order to protect the health and life of humans?

---

(1)  European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10).

1

---