Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1999:298
Date: 1999-06-10
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Taxation;Transport
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 
1. Preliminary rulings — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Agreement concluded 
between certain Member States on charges for the use of roads — Not covered — 
Community directive authorising conclusion of the agreement — Irrelevant — 
Reference in the agreement to definitions given in the directive — Implications for a 
reference seeking interpretation of a term included in those definitions — jurisdiction 
to rule on that interpretation 
(EC Treaty, Art. 177 (now Art. 234 EC); Council Directive 93/89) 
I - 7747 
SUMMARY — CASE C-193/98 
2. Transport — Road transport — Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Taxes on 
certain vehicles used for the carriage of goods by road and charges for the use of certain 
infrastructures — Directive 93/89 — Motor vehicles or articulated vehicle combina­
tions intended solely for the carriage of goods by road — 'Intended exclusively' within 
the meaning of Article 2, fourth indent 
(Council Directive 93/89, Art. 2, fourth indent) 
1. The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction 
to reply to a reference for a preliminary 
ruling on the interpretation of the 
Agreement of 9 February 1994 conclu­
ded between the governments of cer­
tain Member States on the levying of 
charges for the use of certain roads by 
heavy commercial vehicles where the 
question referred concerns neither the 
interpretation of the Treaty nor the 
validity or interpretation of acts of the 
institutions of the Community. 
The fact that the preamble to the 
Agreement, refers to Directive 93/89 
concerning taxes on certain vehicles 
used for the carriage of goods by road 
and tolls and charges for the use of 
cer ta in in f ras t ruc tu res , which 
authorises two or more Member States 
to cooperate in introducing a common 
system for user charges is not enough 
to justify the view that an agreement 
concluded for that purpose forms an 
integral part of Community law, whose 
interpretation falls within the jurisdic­
tion of the Court. 
However, the Court has jurisdiction to 
give a preliminary ruling where the 
national court is not only seeking an 
interpretation of a provision of the 
Agreement, but is also requesting a 
ruling on the interpretation of the 
fourth indent of Article 2 of the Direc­
tive, to which Article 2(1) of the 
Agreement expressly refers. 
2. In order to determine whether a motor 
vehicle or an articulated vehicle com­
bination is intended exclusively for the 
carriage of goods by road, within the 
meaning of the fourth indent of Arti­
cle 2 of Directive 93/89 concerning 
taxes on certain vehicles used for the 
carriage of goods by road and tolls and 
charges for the use of certain infra­
structures, reference must be made to 
the general purpose for which the 
vehicle is intended, irrespective of the 
use to which it may be put in a 
particular instance. 
I - 7748