Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2000:328
Date: 2000-06-15
Language of the case: Italian
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Taxation;Approximation of laws;Excise duties
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Italy

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Excise duties — Directive 92/83 — 
Alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Exemptions from harmonised duty — Products 
referred to in Article 27(1) (a) and (b) of the directive — Criteria governing application 
of the exemption 
(Council Directive 92/83, Art. 27(1)) 
I - 10861 
SUMMARY — CASE C-482/98 
2. Community law — Interpretation — Texts in several languages — Divergence 
between the various language versions 
3. Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Excise duties — Directive 92/83 — 
Alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Exemptions from harmonised duty — Member 
State's power to combat evasion, avoidance or abuse in the application of exemptions 
(Council Directive 92/83, Art. 27(5)) 
1. It is clear from the wording of Art­
icle 27(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 92/83 
on the harmonisation of the structures 
of excise duties on alcohol and alco­
holic beverages that the grant or refusal 
of an exemption from excise duties is 
dependent on the denaturing method. 
If that method has been approved at 
Community level, the alcohol is 
exempted from excise duties under 
Article 27(1)(a). If, on the other hand, 
the alcohol contained in a product not 
intended for human consumption has 
been denatured in accordance with a 
method approved in a Member State, 
the exemption provided for by Art­
icle 27(1)(b) should be applied. More­
over, if the denaturing method is not 
one of those approved either by the 
Community rules or by national laws 
then the product cannot be exempted. 
Consequently, it would be contrary to 
Directive 92/83 to withhold exemption 
for a product which meets the condi­
tions laid down in Article 27(1)(b) 
solely because it has been found that 
the use for which it is really intended 
does not correspond with the name 
assigned to it by the trader. Neither the 
use of pure alcohol nor the maximum 
alcohol content was considered by the 
Community legislature as a criterion 
for application of the exemption. 
(see paras 40-42) 
2. Where there is divergence between the 
various language versions of a Com­
munity text, the provision in question 
must be interpreted by reference to the 
purpose and general scheme of the 
rules of which it forms part. 
(see para. 49) 
3. As regards the conditions under which 
a Member State is empowered, under 
Article 27(5) of Directive 92/83 on the 
harmonisation of the structures of 
I - 10862 
ITALY V COMMISSION 
excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic 
beverages, to combat evasion, avoid­
ance or abuse in the application of 
exemptions, the general scheme of the 
rules at issue implies that the Member 
State concerned must put forward, at 
the very least, concrete evidence of a 
serious risk of evasion, avoidance or 
abuse. 
(see paras 46, 52) 
I - 10863