Order — ECLI:EU:C:2019:185
Date: 2019-03-07
Language of the case: Greek
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Free movement of goods;Customs Union;Charges having an equivalent effect
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Greece

Summary C-689/18 — 1 
Case C-689/18 
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: 
5 November 2018 
Referring court: 
Dioikitiko Protodikeio Patron (Administrative Court of First 
Instance, Patras, Greece) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
7 September 2018 
Applicant: 
XT 
Defendant: 
Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State) 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Tax dispute — Annulment or, in the alternative, variation of a decision by the tax 
authorities imposing wealthy lifestyle tax on the imputed annual expenses 
resulting from ownership of a car with a large cylinder capacity 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Interpretation of EU law, Article 267 TFEU — Legality of the wealthy lifestyle 
tax in light of Articles 28 to 30 TFEU and Article 110 TFEU 
Questions referred 
(1) Does the rule in Article 44(1)(b) of Law 4111/2013, as in force in the 2013 tax 
year (2012 financial year), under which owners or keepers of private cars (with a 
cylinder capacity of 1 929 cc or more) more than ten years old by reference to the 
year when they were first put into circulation in Greece and not to the year of any 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-689/18 
 
2  
prior (first) putting into circulation in a Member State of the European Union are 
exempt from wealthy lifestyle tax, constitute a charge having equivalent effect to 
a customs duty between the Member States of the European Union, within the 
meaning of Articles 28 to 30 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union? 
(2) If the answer to the above question is in the negative, does that rule constitute 
an (indirect) internal tax on products imported from other Member States of the 
European Union in excess of the taxes imposed on similar domestic products, 
within the meaning of Article 110 of that Treaty? 
Provisions of EU law cited 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), Articles 28, 29, 30 and 
110 
Case-law of the Court cited 
Judgment of 14 December 1962, Commission v Luxembourg and Commission v 
Belgium, 2/62 and 3/62, EU:C:1962:45 
Opinion of Advocate General Léger of 20 May 1999, Sandoz, C-439/97, 
EU:C:1999:499, point 62 
Judgment of 9 November 1983, San Giorgio, C-199/82, EU:C:1983:318, 
paragraph 12 
Judgment of 9 February 1999, Dilexport, C-343/96, EU:C:1999:59, paragraph 23 
Judgment of 11 March 1992, Compagnie Commerciale de l’Ouest, C-78/90 to 
C-83/90, EU:C:1992:118, paragraph 25 
Judgment of 11 December 1990, Commission v Denmark, C-47/88, 
EU:C:1990:449, paragraph 17 
Judgment of 19 November 1969, Commission v Italy, 45/64, EU:C:1969:58 
Judgment of 9 May 1985, Humblot, C-112/84, EU:C:1985:185 
Judgment of 3 February 2000, Dounias, C-228/98, EU:C:2000:65, paragraph 41 
Judgment of 15 March 2001, Commission v France, C-265/99, EU:C:2001:169, 
paragraph 40 
Judgment of 16 June 1966, Lutticke, 57/65, EU:C:1966:34 
Judgment of 18 June 1975, IGAV, 94/74, EU:C:1975:81 
ELLINIKO DIMOSIO 
 
3 
Provisions of national law cited 
The Constitution: Article 4(1), which states that all Greeks are equal before the 
law; Article 4(5), which states that Greek citizens are to contribute without 
distinction to public charges in proportion to their means; and Article 78(1), which 
specifies the items subject to taxation (income, property, expenses or 
transactions). 
Law 2238/1994: Article 16, which refers to the calculation of the annual imputed 
expenses for a private car. 
Law 4111/2013: Article 44(1), which provides for the imposition of wealthy 
lifestyle tax on the annual imputed expenses resulting from the owning or keeping 
of cars with a large cylinder capacity, those amounts being obtained from income 
tax returns and from other additional data at the disposal of the General Secretariat 
of Information Systems (G.S.I.S.). Private cars first put into circulation in Greece 
over ten (10) years previously are exempt from the wealthy lifestyle tax. The 
provisions of that paragraph apply to income declared on tax returns filed from the 
2013 tax year onwards. 
Law 4254/2014: Article 3, subparagraph D.1, point 3, which states that owners or 
keepers of private cars first registered either in Greece or in a country in the 
European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) over ten (10) years 
previously are exempt from the wealthy lifestyle tax. That paragraph applies to the 
2014 tax year and to income earned from 1 January 2014 onwards. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure 
1 The applicant was, in the contested 2013 tax year (2012 financial year), the sole 
owner of a private car with a cylinder capacity of 4 966 cc, which was first 
registered in Greece in 2004, having been imported from Germany in 2002. The 
applicant has adduced a photocopy of the relevant registration document to prove 
the fact that his vehicle was first put into circulation in Germany in 2002. That 
document gives 25 October 2002 as the date of first ‘INT’ [international] 
registration and 16 September 2004 as the date of first registration in Greece. 
2 Following assessment of the applicant’s income tax return for that tax year, the 
General Secretariat of Public Revenue issued an assessment notice imposing on 
the applicant wealthy lifestyle tax of EUR 2 926 on the imputed annual expenses 
resulting from ownership of the above vehicle, on the basis of Article 44 of Law 
4111/2013 as in force at the time.  
3 Subsequently, on 7 January 2014, the applicant filed an application with the 
competent tax office (Patras Tax Office) requesting exemption from the wealthy 
lifestyle tax and cancellation of the aforementioned assessment notice.  
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-689/18 
 
4  
4 The applicant lodged an administrative appeal against the tacit rejection of his 
application by the head of the aforementioned tax office with the head of the 
Directorate for Settlement of Disputes of the General Secretariat of Public 
Revenue, who rejected that appeal by the contested decision dated 13 June 2014 
and upheld the contested assessment notice imposing wealthy lifestyle tax. 
Principal arguments of the parties to the main proceedings 
5 The applicant claims that: (a) the tax authority miscalculated the age of his vehicle 
by basing it on the year in which it was first put into circulation in Greece, as 
given in the relevant registration document (2004), rather than on the year (2002) 
in which it was first put into circulation in the country (Germany) from which it 
was imported as a used car; (b) the contested provision of Article 44(1) of Law 
4111/2013, which initially exempted from the wealthy lifestyle tax only owners of 
private cars first put into circulation in Greece (rather than in a country of the 
European Union) over ten years previously, conflicts with EU law and with the 
case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union prohibiting tax 
discrimination and, in particular, prohibiting charges having equivalent effect to 
customs duties and discriminatory internal taxes; (c) this has, moreover, also been 
accepted indirectly by the national legislature, which, by Article 3, subparagraph 
D.1, of Law 4254/2014, which entered into force in the 2014 tax year (2013 
financial year), extended the above provision to include used vehicles imported 
from an EU/EEA country, whose age is calculated on the basis of the year in 
which they were first put into circulation in that country, and that amended 
provision, being purely interpretative, must also be applied retroactively to the 
contested 2013 tax year (2012 financial year); (d) on the basis of these 
considerations and in light of the fact that, on 26 October 2012, his vehicle had 
been on the road for ten years (the first registration document having been issued 
in Germany on 25 October 2002), the applicant was not liable for the tax enacted 
under Law 4111/2013 and should be exempted from it as if he were the owner of a 
domestic (rather than of an imported) used vehicle; (e) Article 3, subparagraph 
D.1, point 1, of Law 4254/2014 (which entered into force in the 2014 tax year) 
provides for the annual imputed expenses for a vehicle to be reduced in 
accordance with its age, on the basis of the year in which it was first put into 
circulation in any EU/EEA country, not just in Greece, which provision, being 
purely interpretative, must also be applied retroactively to the contested (2013) tax 
year; (f) the contested tax conflicts with Article 17(2) of Law 3833/2010 
excluding Community vehicles registered in another EU Member State before that 
article entered into force from wealth tax; (g) the assessment and imposition of a 
wealth tax on imported used vehicles in exactly the same way as if they were new 
vehicles purchased in Greece on the date on which the imported used car was 
registered and put into circulation in Greece infringes the principle of proportional 
distribution of the tax burden; (h) in light of these considerations, interpreted in 
combination, the contested tax conflicts with a number of constitutional 
principles, including those enshrined in Article 4(1) and (5) and Article 78(2) of 
the Constitution.  
ELLINIKO DIMOSIO 
 
5 
6 By contrast, the defendant, the Greek State, contends that the contested wealthy 
lifestyle tax is lawful and correct and requests that the application under 
consideration be dismissed. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in  the order for reference 
7 The referring court notes in particular: (a) the wealthy lifestyle tax laid down by 
Article 44 of Law 4111/2013 on income declared in tax returns from the 2013 tax 
year (2012 financial year) onwards conflicts neither with the Constitution nor with 
Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human 
Rights (ECHR); (b) the applicant’s key contention for the purpose of deciding the 
present case, essentially that he must be exempt from the above tax in the 2013 tax 
year (2012 financial year) because his vehicle was over ten years old, calculated 
from the year (2002) in which it was first put into circulation in an EU country 
(Germany), rather than from the year in which it was first put into circulation as 
an imported used car in Greece (2004), is based on provisions of the national legal 
system (of constitutional and general law), but is, however, based primarily on the 
provisions of Articles 28 to 30 and Article 110 TFEU; (c) in its view, the above 
provisions of EU law require interpretation; and (d) its judgment in this case is not 
open to judicial remedy.  
8 Regarding in particular the interpretation of Articles 28 to 30 TFEU on charges 
having equivalent effect to customs duties, the referring court notes that, as the 
Court of Justice of the European Union has held, any pecuniary charge, however 
small and whatever its designation and mode of application, which is imposed 
unilaterally on domestic or foreign goods by reason of the fact that they cross a 
frontier, and which is not a customs duty in the strict sense, constitutes a charge 
having equivalent effect, even if it is not imposed for the benefit of the State, is 
not discriminatory or protective in effect and the product on which the charge is 
imposed is not in competition with any domestic product (see, for example, 
judgment of 14 December 1962, Commission v Luxembourg and Commission v 
Belgium, 2/62 and 3/62, EU:C:1962:45). Irrespective of its designation and mode 
of application, the above charge must fulfil three criteria in order to conflict with 
Article 30 TFEU, namely: (a) it must be imposed unilaterally at the time of 
importation or subsequently; (b) it must be imposed specifically upon an imported 
product to the exclusion of a similar domestic product; and, most importantly, (c) 
it must alter the price of the product, for example, it must raise the price of the 
foreign products by having the same restrictive effect as a customs duty (judgment 
of 14 December 1962, Commission v Luxembourg and Commission v Belgium, 
2/62 and 3/62, EU:C:1962:45). Moreover, the right to a refund of charges levied 
in a Member State in breach of rules of EU law is the consequence of, and 
complement to, the rights conferred on individuals by the Community provisions 
prohibiting charges having an effect equivalent to customs duties (see, for 
example, judgments of 9 November 1983, San Giorgio, 199/82, EU:C:1983:318, 
paragraph 12, and of 9 February 1999, Dilexport, C-343/96, EU:C:1999:59, 
paragraph 23). 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-689/18 
 
6  
9 Furthermore, regarding Article 110 TFEU and internal taxes, the referring court 
notes that, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union, the applicability of that provision depends on whether or not a national tax 
measure is discriminatory or protective vis-à-vis imported products (see, for 
example, judgment of 11 March 1992, Compagnie Commerciale de l’Ouest, 
C-78/90 to C-83/90, EU:C:1992:118, paragraph 25). Indirect discrimination 
includes cases in which a higher charge is imposed on imported products, even 
though national tax rules are applied with no formal distinction both to imported 
products and to domestic products (see, for example, judgment of 9 May 1985, 
Humblot, 112/84, EU:C:1985:185).  
10 In light of the above case-law of the Court relating to the provisions of the Treaty 
on the Functioning of the European Union on which the application under 
consideration relies, the referring court considers that the questions set out above 
must be referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling.