Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2015:737
Date: 2015-10-29
Language of the case: Hungarian
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Citizenship of the Union;Anti-discrimination;Non-discrimination on grounds of nationality
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Hungary

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber), 29 October 2015 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court —Identification of the relevant points of EU law (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments — Provisions of the Treaty — Scope — Cross-border lending of a vehicle free of charge — Included (Art. 63 TFEU) 3. Citizenship of the Union — Provisions of the Treaty — Substantive scope — Discrimination on grounds of nationality — Cross-border lending of a vehicle free of charge — Not included — Matter involving the free movement of capital (Arts 18 TFEU, 20(2)(a) TFEU and 63 TFEU] 4. Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments — Restrictions — Road use — National law making road use conditional upon the vehicle having administrative authorisation and registration plates issued by the Member State — Requirement to provide on the spot proof that use of the vehicle complies with the law, on pain of the immediate imposition of a fine equivalent to that applicable in the event of infringement of the registration requirement — Unlawful — No justification (Art. 63(1) TFEU) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 20, 21) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 23) 3. See the text of the decision. (see paras 23, 24) 4. Article 63(1) TFEU precludes national legislation under which, as a rule, only vehicles that have administrative authorisation and registration plates issued by the Member State in question may be used on the road network in that Member State and under which, if a resident of that Member State seeks to rely on a derogation from that rule, on the grounds that he uses a vehicle made available to him by the keeper of that vehicle established in another Member State, he must be able to prove on the spot, during a police check, that he fulfils the conditions for such a derogation, as laid down by the national legislation in question, on pain of the immediate imposition of a fine equivalent to that applicable in the event of infringement of the registration requirement, without any possibility of an exemption from that fine. It would be otherwise only if the vehicle registered in a different Member State is intended to be used essentially in the territory of the Member State concerned on a permanent basis or if it is, in fact, used in that way, which it is for the referring court to determine. While such a law appears to be appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective of combating tax fraud in the field of registration tax and tax on motor vehicles, it must nevertheless be considered to go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective. It cannot be concluded that the objective of combating tax fraud could be attained only if the documents proving that the conditions for derogation from the registration requirement are fulfilled are produced on the spot at a roadside check, on pain of a fine equivalent to that applicable for breach of the registration requirement, and that such an objective could not be attained if those documents were produced, as in the case in the main proceedings, within a short period of time after that check. As regards the justifications based on the need for roadside checks to be effective, such a measure, imposing a fine of a considerable sum intended specifically to penalise the failure to comply with the registration requirement goes beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of ensuring roadside checks are effective. (see paras 30, 32-34, 37, operative part)