Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2024:1044
Date: 2024-12-19
Language of the case: Finnish
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Approximation of laws
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Finland

Summary of the main arguments of the parties 
12 B UG considers that it should not be regarded as a distance seller in the present 
matter. Neither was it actually involved in organising the movement of the 
excisable goods, it argues, nor did it direct the purchaser on its website to use a 
particular transport company or bring the purchaser and the transport company 
together. The contractual relationship was established, it submits, between the 
transport company and the purchaser. It claims that ownership of the goods and 
the risks attaching to them were transferred from the seller to the purchaser in 
Germany, when the seller handed over the goods to the transport company chosen 
by the purchaser. B UG argues that three transport companies were mentioned on 
its website as examples and that the website clearly stated that customers decide 
on a service provider independently. It submits that some 20 different transport 
companies have collected goods from its warehouse and it cannot be considered to 
have directed its customers to use a particular transport company. The carriage 
calculator on the website serves, it says, only as an aid to enable customers to 
estimate the transport capacity and the possible transport costs. 
13 B UG further states that it passed on no information to the transport company and 
that no information was exchanged between itself and the transport company. The 
link on its website to the transport company’s website does not mean, it argues, 
that it was involved in organising the transport of the goods. Moreover, its website 
contains links to more than one transport company. B UG submits that its website 
expressly states that customers themselves are responsible for paying the 
applicable taxes in Finland and that further information can be found on the 
websites of the Finnish customs authority and Valvira (a Finnish authority). In B 
UG’s view, it was known to the customer at the time of purchase that he would 
have to pay taxes in Finland for the goods delivered to Finland. Given the price 
charged to the customer, it argues, it is obvious that the customer must have 
POHJANRI 
 
5 
understood that the price of the goods did not include the taxes applicable in 
Finland. 
14 The Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö (Tax Recipients Legal Services Unit, 
Finland) has submitted that a distance sale is a sale in which a private individual 
acquires alcoholic beverages released for consumption in another Member State 
and dispatched or transported to Finland directly or indirectly by the distance 
seller or on its behalf. It cites the travaux préparatoires for the Law on excise duty 
(HE 263/2009 vp) as establishing that a sale is considered a distance sale if the 
vendor directs the purchaser on its website to use a particular transport company. 
It states that a distance seller which has no tax representative in Finland must 
declare the goods to the tax authority before dispatching them to Finland and 
provide security for payment of the applicable taxes. It submits that the provisions 
of the Law on excise duty are consistent with those of Directive 2008/118/EC. B 
UG, it argues, directed the purchaser on its website to engage particular transport 
companies and thereby involved itself in the transport arrangements. It submits 
that B UG is a distance seller and therefore a taxable person. It claims that B UG 
failed to fulfil its obligation to notify the tax authority of the dispatch of the goods 
and to provide the associated security. 
National law and travaux préparatoires 
National provisions in force in 2020 
15 Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general 
arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC was transposed 
in Finland by the national Law on excise duty (182/2010). The Law on excise 
duty is applicable in the main proceedings in the version in force in 2020. The 
principles governing the levying of the tax payable to the State on alcohol and 
alcoholic beverages and the amount of the tax are also laid down in the relevant 
Laki alkoholi- ja alkoholijuomaverosta (Law on the taxation of alcohol and 
alcoholic beverages) (1471/1994). 
16 Under the second subparagraph of Paragraph 1 of the Law on excise duty 
(182/2010), the law applies to the levying of excise duty on, inter alia, alcohol and 
alcoholic beverages unless otherwise provided for in the relevant lex specialis. 
17 Under Paragraph 6(11) of the Law on excise duty (182/2010), a distance sale 
within the meaning of that law is a sale in which a person other than an authorised 
warehousekeeper or a registered consignee or a temporarily registered consignee, 
established in Finland and not engaged in an independent economic activity, has 
acquired excise goods released for consumption in another Member State, which 
are dispatched or transported to Finland directly or indirectly by the distance seller 
or on its behalf. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 26. 9. 2023 – CASE C-596/23 
 
6  
18 Under Paragraph 6(12) of the Law on excise duty (182/2010), a distance seller is 
a vendor which sells goods to Finland in accordance with point (11). 
19 Under the first subparagraph of Paragraph 72 of the Law on excise duty 
(495/2014), no excise duty is levied on goods released for consumption in another 
Member State when they are acquired by a private individual for his own use and 
transported by that private individual to Finland. 
20 Where a private individual acquires excise goods from another Member State for 
his own use neither under Paragraph 72 nor by way of distance selling and the 
goods are transported to Finland by another private individual or a professional 
trader, the taxable person is, under the first subparagraph of Paragraph 74 of the 
Law on excise duty (182/2010), the private individual who acquired the goods. 
Any person involved in the transport of the goods or in possession of the goods in 
Finland is also liable for the tax payable by the private individual who acquired 
the goods, as if it were his own tax liability. 
21 Under the first subparagraph of Paragraph 79 of the Law on excise duty, excise 
duty is levied on goods sold to Finland by way of distance selling. Under the 
second subparagraph of that provision, the distance seller is taxable. If the 
distance seller has a tax representative, the tax representative is liable for the tax 
instead of the distance seller. The distance seller is liable for the excise duty 
payable by the tax representative as if it were his own tax liability. Under the third 
subparagraph of the same provision, excise duty becomes payable when the excise 
goods are handed over in Finland. Excise duty is to be paid in accordance with the 
provisions in force on the day when the goods are handed over in Finland. 
Travaux préparatoires relating to Paragraph 74 of the Law on excise duty 
22 In the government bill for the Law on excise duty (HE 263/2009 vp, p. 46), the 
detailed reasons relating to Paragraph 74 of the law contain the following: 
‘The provision would govern cases where a private individual acquires excise 
goods from another Member State for his own use neither under Paragraph 72 nor 
by way of distance selling. In such cases, the private individual would not bring 
the goods to Finland himself; they would be transported by another private 
individual or by a professional trader. This means that a private individual would, 
for example, acquire goods from another Member State online and arrange for the 
transport of those goods to Finland himself without the vendor, or anyone else 
acting on its behalf, being involved in organising the transport. 
[…] 
Taxes would be levied on the goods irrespective of whether they were imported 
into Finland by a professional trader – such as a transport company or a postal 
service – or by another private individual. The essential difference to distance 
selling would be that the vendor or a person acting on its behalf could not be 
POHJANRI 
 
7 
involved in any way in transporting the goods or in organising transport. If, in 
contrast, the vendor were for example to direct the purchaser on its website to use 
particular transport companies, that would constitute distance selling, in which the 
distance seller or its tax representative would be required to pay the excise duty in 
the Member State of destination.’ 
Relevant provisions of EU law 
23 Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general 
arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (OJ 2009 L 9, 
p. 12), which was in force at the time of the occurrences material to the decision, 
is applicable in the present proceedings. 
24 Under Article 7(1) of Directive 2008/118/EC, excise duty becomes chargeable at 
the time of release for consumption and in the Member State where that occurs. 
25 Under Article 32(1) of Directive 2008/118/EC, excise duty on excise goods 
acquired by a private individual for his own use, and transported from one 
Member State to another by him, shall be charged only in the Member State in 
which the excise goods are acquired. 
26 Article 36 of Directive 2008/118/EC provides as follows in respect of distance 
sales: 
‘1. Excise goods already released for consumption in one Member State, which 
are purchased by a person, other than an authorised warehousekeeper or a 
registered consignee, established in another Member State who does not carry out 
an independent economic activity, and which are dispatched or transported to 
another Member State directly or indirectly by the vendor or on his behalf shall be 
subject to excise duty in the Member State of destination. 
For the purposes of this Article, “Member State of destination” shall mean the 
Member State of arrival of the consignment or of transport. 
2. In the case referred to in paragraph 1, the excise duty shall become chargeable 
in the Member State of destination at the time of delivery of the excise goods. The 
chargeability conditions and rate of excise duty to be applied shall be those in 
force on the date on which duty becomes chargeable. 
The excise duty shall be paid in accordance with the procedure laid down by the 
Member State of destination. 
3. The person liable to pay the excise duty in the Member State of destination 
shall be the vendor. 
However, the Member State of destination may provide that the liable person shall 
be a tax representative, established in the Member State of destination and 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 26. 9. 2023 – CASE C-596/23 
 
8  
approved by the competent authorities of that Member State, or, in cases where 
the vendor has not respected the provision of paragraph 4(a), the consignee of the 
excise goods.’ 
The need for a preliminary ruling 
27 The issue to be clarified in the present case is whether B UG was involved in such 
a way in the transport of the alcoholic beverages sold to Finland and released for 
consumption in Germany that the company must be regarded in Finland as liable 
for excise duty in its capacity as a distance seller of the goods. 
28 It is undisputed that the private individual who acquired the goods in Germany 
purchased them for his own consumption. The private individual paid the 
transport costs for the goods he purchased from the company directly to the 
transport company responsible for transporting them. 
29 In the view of the hallinto-oikeus (Administrative Court), the case-law of the 
Court gives no answer to the question of how the expression ‘dispatched or 
transported to another Member State directly or indirectly by the vendor or on his 
behalf’ in Article 36(1) of Directive 2008/118/EC is to be interpreted. 
30 In the main proceedings before the hallinto-oikeus (Administrative Court), the 
matter to be assessed is, in particular, whether the vendor was directly or 
indirectly involved in the transport of the goods to another Member State within 
the meaning of Article 36(1) of Directive 2008/118/EC if, on the vendor’s website 
through which excise goods were sold to a purchaser established in another 
Member State, various transport companies were named and information was 
provided on the transport costs arising for the purchaser. The vendor’s website 
also contained a link to the transport company’s website, to which information 
about the goods to be transported was transmitted without the intervention of the 
purchaser. 
31 Directive 2008/118/EC has been repealed by the recast Council Directive (EU) 
2020/262 of 19 December 2019 laying down the general arrangements for excise 
duty. Article 44(1) of the recast Directive (EU) 2020/262 now in force 
corresponds to Article 36(1) of Directive 2008/118/EC. 
32 In the absence of any case-law of the Court on the question of law described 
above, and because, in the view of the hallinto-oikeus (Administrative Court), 
clarification of Article 36 of Directive 2008/118/EC concerning distance selling is 
necessary for the uniform application of both Directive 2008/118/EC and the 
current Directive (EU) 2020/262 in the various Member States, the following 
questions are referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. 
33 The company and the Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö (Tax Recipients 
Legal Services Unit, Finland) have had the opportunity to submit observations on 
whether a request for a preliminary ruling should be made to the Court. 
POHJANRI 
 
9 
Hallinto-oikeus (Administrative Court) interim order to request a 
preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union 
34 The hallinto-oikeus (Administrative Court) stays the proceedings and asks the 
Court of Justice under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of the provisions of 
Directive 2008/118/EC concerning distance selling. Seeking a preliminary ruling 
is necessary for deciding the case pending before the hallinto-oikeus 
(Administrative Court). 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Does Directive 2008/118/EC, in particular Article 36 thereof concerning 
distance selling, preclude an interpretation of national law according to which a 
vendor of excise goods established in another Member State is regarded as 
involved in the transport of the goods to the Member State of destination and 
liable for excise duty in the Member State of destination from distance sales solely 
because the vendor, on its website, directs the purchaser to use a particular 
transport company? 
2. Did the vendor of excise goods dispatch or transport goods to another 
Member State directly or indirectly within the meaning of Article 36(1) of 
Directive 2008/118/EC and was it subject to duty from distance sales within the 
meaning of the directive if the vendor’s website recommended particular transport 
companies and gave information on the transport costs arising for the purchaser 
and the transport costs were charged by a transport company to which the 
information on the goods to be transported had been transmitted without the 
intervention of the purchaser? Is the fact that the purchaser concluded a separate 
contract for the carriage of the goods with the transport company mentioned on 
the vendor’s website of relevance to the assessment of that question? 
[…]