Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2020:337
Date: 2020-04-30
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Alcohol;Taxation;Excise duties
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Summary C-184/19 — 1 
Case C-184/19 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
26 February 2019 
Referring court: 
Curtea de Apel București (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
19 December 2018 
Appellant: 
Hecta Viticol SRL 
Respondents: 
Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (ANAF) — Direcția 
Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor 
Biroul Vamal de Interior Buzău 
Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Galați 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Administrative appeal whereby the appellant seeks annulment of various 
administrative acts adopted by the respondents in which Principal Company SA, 
subsequently incorporated into the appellant company, was obliged to pay an 
amount of RON 59 461 575 by way of excise duty on still fermented beverages 
other than beer and wines. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Interpretation is sought, under Article 267 TFEU, of Articles 7, 11 and 15 of 
Directive 92/83, of Article 5 of Directive 92/84, and of the principles of legal 
certainty and the protection of legitimate [expectations]. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-184/19 
 
2  
Questions referred 
1. Do Articles 7, 11 [and] 15 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 
1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and 
alcoholic beverages and Article 5 of Council Directive 92/84/EEC of 
19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol 
and alcoholic beverages preclude the provisions of Article I(21) and Article 
IV(1) of Ordonanța de urgență [a Guvernului] nr. 54 din 23 iunie 2010 
privind unele măsuri pentru combaterea evaziunii fiscale (Government 
Emergency Order No 54 of 23 June 2010 laying down certain measures to 
address tax evasion)? 
2. Do the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate 
[expectations] preclude the rule laid down in Article I(21) and Article IV(1) 
of Ordonanța de urgență [a Guvernului] nr. 54 din 23 iunie 2010 privind 
unele măsuri pentru combaterea evaziunii fiscale, inasmuch as it alters the 
rate of excise duty on still fermented beverages other than beer and wines? 
Provisions of EU law relied on 
Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the 
structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, 
p. 21), Articles 7, 11 and 15; 
Council Directive 92/84/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the 
rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 29), 
Article 5. 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Legea nr. 571 din 22 decembrie 2003 privind Codul fiscal (Law No 571 of 
22 December 2003 establishing the Tax Code) (‘Law No 571/2003’), in the 
version in force prior to the adoption of Ordonanță de urgență a Guvernului nr. 
54/2010 (Government Emergency Order No 54/2010). 
The rate of excise duty on fermented beverages other than beer and wines was set 
at EUR 0 (zero). That Law provided that it was to be amended only by the 
adoption of a Law, promoted, as a general rule, six months before the date of its 
entry into force, and that any amendment thereto was to enter into force from the 
first day of the year following the year in which it was adopted by means of a 
Law. 
Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 54 din 23 iunie 2010 privind unele 
măsuri pentru combaterea evaziunii fiscale (Government Emergency Order 
No 54 of 23 June 2010 laying down certain measures to address tax evasion) 
(‘OUG No 54/2010’). Article I(21) amends Law No 571/2003 by establishing an 
HECTA VITICOL 
 
3 
excise duty on fermented drinks other than beer and wines of EUR 100 per 
hectolitre of product, and Article IV provides that that duty is to apply as from 
1 July 2010. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and the main proceedings 
1 By tax inspection report of 29 April 2011, drawn up by the Direcția județeană 
pentru accize și operațiuni vamale Buzău (County directorate for excise and 
customs operations, Buzău), it was established that, during the period from 1 April 
2010 to 31 December 2010, Principal Company SA had marketed, under tax 
warehouse conditions, the still fermented beverage ‘CETERA’, applying an excise 
duty of EUR 0 (zero) per hectolitre of product. However, according to the tax 
inspectorate, from the date of entry into force of OUG No 54/2010 — 1 July 
2010 — that company should have applied an excise duty of the equivalent in 
RON to EUR 100 per hectolitre of product. 
2 As a result, a tax assessment notice was issued on 3 May 2011 whereby Principal 
Company SA was ordered to pay an amount of RON 59 461 575 by way of excise 
duty on still fermented beverages other than beer and wines. 
3 The complaint brought against that tax assessment notice was rejected as 
unfounded by the Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor (Directorate-
General for the settlement of complaints) by decision of 25 July 2017, with that 
body finding that the tax assessment notice was lawful and well founded and 
arguing in addition that, by a decision of 22 March 2012, the Curtea 
Constituțională (Constitutional Court) had recognised the constitutionality of the 
provisions of OUG No 54/2010 following a plea of non-constitutionality raised by 
Principal Company SA in another case. 
4 On 14 June 2013 Principal Company SA merged with the appellant, Hecta Viticol 
SRL, the former being incorporated into the latter. The appellant brought an 
administrative appeal before the referring court against the decision of 25 July 
2017, the decision of 3 May 2011, and the inspection report of 29 April 2011, 
seeking annulment of those acts. 
Essential arguments of the parties to the main proceedings 
5 The appellant raises two grounds of appeal. By the first ground, it submits that, 
from a tax perspective, Directives 92/83 and 92/84 treat still wine and still 
fermented beverages in a similar way, including both in a single category of 
products subject to excise duty. Accordingly, the same rate of excise duty should 
be applied in both cases. However, through OUG No 54/2010 a differential tax 
treatment was introduced in respect of those two categories of products, inasmuch 
as wine was made subject to an excise duty of EUR 0 per hectolitre, while 
fermented beverages other than beer and wines were made subject to an excise 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-184/19 
 
4  
duty of EUR 100 per hectolitre. Consequently, the national legislation is not in 
line with the directives referred to above. 
6 By the second ground, the appellant invokes the principles of the neutrality of tax 
measures, tax certainty, legal certainty and the predictability of the law. The 
appellant thus contests the amendment of Law No 571/2003 by a Government 
Emergency Order, the entry into force of OUG No 54/2010 less than 10 days after 
its publication in the Monitorul Oficial (Official Gazette) and the lack of any 
transitional provisions in that legislative act, notwithstanding the prohibition, laid 
down in that Law, on introducing amendments to the Tax Code by adopting an act 
other than a Law and on such amendments entering into force earlier than the first 
day of the year following the year in which they were adopted. 
7 The respondents maintain that a request for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible, 
inasmuch as, under Article 267 TFEU, the question submitted to the Court may 
not concern specific aspects of the case brought before the referring court. In 
addition, any ruling by the Court would be neither useful nor relevant for the 
purpose of resolving the dispute in the main proceedings. 
8 As regards the alleged infringement of Directives 92/83 and 92/84, the 
respondents invoke the decision of the Curtea Constituțională of 22 March 2012 
from which it is apparent that OUG No 54/2010 does not infringe the provisions 
of the Constituția României (Romanian Constitution), which means it would be 
useless to refer a question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. 
9 Lastly, the respondents contend that Directives 92/83 and 92/84 have been 
repealed and that their provisions have already been transposed into national 
legislation. 
Succinct presentation of the reasons for the reference 
10 Having rejected the pleas of inadmissibility put forward by the respondents and 
having considered that a request for a preliminary ruling would be admissible and 
useful for the purposes of resolving the dispute in the main proceedings, the 
referring court observes that Directives 92/83 and 92/84 have not been repealed 
but are still in force, as can be seen by consulting EUR-Lex. 
11 As regards the first question, which has been raised at the appellant’s request, the 
referring court states that an answer from the Court of Justice is necessary in order 
for it to be able to give a ruling on the dispute before it. 
12 As regards the second question, the referring court observes that, contrary to 
certain provisions set out in Law No 571/2003, that Law has not been amended by 
the adoption of a Law, but by the adoption of a Government Emergency Order, 
and that the amendment at issue did not enter into force on the first day of the year 
following the year in which it was adopted, but less than 10 days after its 
publication in the Monitorul Oficial. In addition, that Government Emergency 
HECTA VITICOL 
 
5 
Order does not contain any transitional provisions. Accordingly, the referring 
court considers that OUG No 54/2010 infringes the principles of legal certainty 
and the protection of legitimate [expectations].