# CE2004088EN.01015601.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/156 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/156

---

(2004/C 88 E/0166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3819/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 December 2003)

Subject:   Circulation in Greece of private vehicles fitted with Community numberplates

Subject:

Freedom of movement of persons in the European Union is guaranteed, and any Community national may elect to reside in any EU country, register his name on the relevant lists and — if he so wishes — purchase a private vehicle fitted with numberplates from the Member State in which he has opted to reside. In this way many Greeks have legally acquired private vehicles with Community numberplates which they drive in Greece. However the Greek authorities severely penalise this practice, since they do not allow such vehicles to circulate for more than six months and, where this period is found to have elapsed, they impound the vehicle and impose very heavy fines, despite the fact that the owners of these vehicles are legally resident in (and even nationals of) another EU Member State.

Are these actions by the Greek authorities in line with Community legislation? In which other EU Member States are vehicles circulating with numberplates from another EU Member State impounded and their owners given draconian fines? Does it intend to take any action and, if so, what action to put an end to this state of affairs caused by the distorted Greek tax system which excessively taxes vehicles over 1 800 cc. which are exceedingly expensive in Greece (the country with the lowest per capita income in the EU — a mere 67 % of the Community average, according to the latest Eurostat statistics), thereby forcing many Greeks to purchase vehicles with numberplates from another Member State?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2004)

(13 February 2004)

The free movement of Union (EU) citizens is a fundamental right acknowledged by Article 18 of the EC Treaty. According to this article, each EU citizen has the right to choose the place where (s)he prefers to reside inside the EU and to freely circulate under the conditions foreseen by the EC Treaty. Normally, the EU citizen registers his car, legally bought, in the Member State where he is resident and it can likewise happen that the Member State of his residence does not coincide with his country of nationality (for instance, in the case of a Greek national, who is legally resident in Germany in which (s)he buys and registers a car).

As regards the specific Community tax legislation concerning the written question, it should be noted that on 28 March 1983 Council Directive 83/182/EEC on tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another (1) was approved. That Directive is, according to its recitals, designed to eliminate obstacles to the free movement of persons, and to the establishment of a European internal market, that result from the different tax regimes in the Member States applicable to the temporary importation of certain means of transport.

1

According to the Directive, when a means of transport is temporarily imported, exemption from vehicle registration tax and from normal road taxes is granted for a period, continuous or otherwise, of not more than six months in any twelve months, provided the following conditions are met:

| — | the means of transport has been acquired in accordance with the general conditions of taxation in force on the domestic market of a Member State; |
| --- | --- |

—

the means of transport has been acquired in accordance with the general conditions of taxation in force on the domestic market of a Member State;

| — | the individual importing that means of transport has his normal residence in a Member State other than the Member State of temporary importation and employs the means of transport in question for his private use; |
| --- | --- |

—

the individual importing that means of transport has his normal residence in a Member State other than the Member State of temporary importation and employs the means of transport in question for his private use;

| — | the means of transport is not disposed of or hired out in the Member State of temporary importation or lent to a resident of that State. |
| --- | --- |

—

the means of transport is not disposed of or hired out in the Member State of temporary importation or lent to a resident of that State.

The Commission is aware that the application of this Directive in Greece has been very problematic. Three judgments of the Court (2) address this matter.

2

In this respect, according to the Commission's information, the main problems are the following:

| — | The determination of the place of ‘normal residence’ in the case of Greek nationals. |
| --- | --- |

—

The determination of the place of ‘normal residence’ in the case of Greek nationals.

| — | The extremely severe penalties which are imposed in case of infringement of the rules set out in Directive 83/182/EEC. In this respect, the Court, in its judgment in Case C-262/99, noting that the penalty ‘must not be so disproportionate to the gravity of the infringement that it becomes an obstacle to the freedoms enshrined in the Treaty’, 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 the gravity of the infringement is taken into account’ and that ‘where the 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’. Moreover, the seizure of the car in cases of presumed breach of Directive 83/182/EEC (which could drive to an accusation of smuggling that in Greece may lead, at least according to some information at the disposal of the Commission, to cases in which the car is sold by the authorities and therefore is never given back to its previous owner, even in cases in which the competent Court eventually decides that the EU citizen is innocent) could raise further problems following the adoption of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (3). |
| --- | --- |

—

The extremely severe penalties which are imposed in case of infringement of the rules set out in Directive 83/182/EEC. In this respect, the Court, in its judgment in Case C-262/99, noting that the penalty ‘must not be so disproportionate to the gravity of the infringement that it becomes an obstacle to the freedoms enshrined in the Treaty’, 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 the gravity of the infringement is taken into account’ and that ‘where the 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’. Moreover, the seizure of the car in cases of presumed breach of Directive 83/182/EEC (which could drive to an accusation of smuggling that in Greece may lead, at least according to some information at the disposal of the Commission, to cases in which the car is sold by the authorities and therefore is never given back to its previous owner, even in cases in which the competent Court eventually decides that the EU citizen is innocent) could raise further problems following the adoption of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (3).

3

After receiving a number of complaints from Greek nationals, the Commission initiated an infringement procedure and decided to bring Greece to the Court. Moreover, it must be said that the Commission presented a Proposal for a Council Directive (4) in 1998, with the overall objective of bringing the tax treatment of vehicles more in line with the concept and principles of the single market.

4

The Commission presented a Communication on taxation of passenger cars in the Union (5) in September 2002, in which it explores, ‘inter alia’, ways of removing the present tax obstacles to the free movement of passenger cars within the internal market. On the basis of the principles outlined in the Communication, the Commission will present a fresh Proposal for Community legislation in 2004.

5

---

(1)  OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.

1

(2)  Judgment of 2 August 1993 in Case C-9/92, Commission versus Hellenic Republic; judgment of 29 May 1997 in Case C-389/95, Siegfried Klattner versus Hellenic Republic; judgment of 12 July 2001 in Case C-262/99, Paraskevas Louloudakis versus Hellenic Republic.

2

(3)  In particular, Article 17 of the Charter includes the right of property as a fundamental right of the EU citizen.

3

(4)  OJ C 108, 7.4.1998.

4

(5)  Communication to the Council and the Parliament on ‘taxation of passenger cars in the Union — options for action at national and Community levels’, of 6 September 2002, COM(2002)431 final.

5

---