Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2004:499
Date: 2004-09-09
Language of the case: German
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Taxation
Concepts: Excise duties
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment Tax provisions – Harmonisation of legislation – Structures of excise duties on mineral oils – Directive 92/81 – Mineral oils, marked or not, released for consumption in a Member State and contained in the standard tank of commercial motor vehicles, including agricultural machinery – Use as fuel for propulsion or other purposes, by those vehicles – Liable to excise duties in another Member State – Prohibition – Possibility for individuals to rely on Article 8a of Directive 92/81 before the national court (Council Directive 92/81, Art. 8a(1)) Article 8a(1) of Directive 92/81 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils is to be interpreted as prohibiting Member States from subjecting to excise duty mineral oil, whether marked or unmarked, contained in the standard tank of a commercial motor vehicle, including agricultural machinery, and used as fuel not only to move the vehicle but also in order to utilise it for other purposes such as agricultural work, when that mineral oil has been lawfully released for consumption in another Member State. It is apparent from the wording of that article, which provides that mineral oils released for consumption in a Member State, contained in the standard tanks of commercial motor vehicles and intended to be used as fuel by those same vehicles, are not to be subject to excise duty in another Member State, considered in the light of its objectives, namely to protect freedom of movement for individuals and goods and to prevent double taxation, that that article must be interpreted broadly. Furthermore, a Member State cannot, on the basis of its own rules, prohibit the use of mineral oil marked as fuel in the standard tank of a commercial motor vehicle from another Member State which allows such a practice. That prohibition is, moreover, sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional to be relied upon by individuals in proceedings before national courts in order to contest national rules that are incompatible with it. (see paras 41, 54-55, 61-62, operative part 1-2)