Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2023:63
Date: 2023-02-02
Language of the case: Finnish
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Free movement of goods;Measures having equivalent effect;Quantitative restrictions;Internal taxation
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Finland

Summary C-676/21 – 1 
Case C-676/21 
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:  
9 November 2021 
Referring court:  
Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland)  
Date of the decision to refer:  
2 November 2021 
Appellant:  
A 
Other party: 
Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö 
 
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Request for a preliminary ruling – Article 267 TFEU – Taxation of motor 
vehicles – Articles 28, 30, 34 to 36 and 110 TFEU – Export refund – Private 
vehicle – Restriction based on the duration for which a vehicle has been 
used – Free movement of goods – Assessment of motor vehicle tax on the 
basis of the duration for which a vehicle has been used in a Member State – 
Prohibition of discriminatory taxation 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
In the case pending before the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative 
Court, Finland), which concerns motor vehicle taxation, the issue to be decided is 
whether the Verohallinto (Tax Administration) was entitled to refuse A’s 
application for a refund of motor vehicle tax on the ground that, under 
Paragraph 34d(2) of the Autoverolaki (Law on motor vehicle tax), motor vehicle 
tax is not to be refunded in respect of a vehicle which was first brought into use at 
least ten years before the time of export. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-676/21 
 
2  
The question to be examined in the proceedings is whether the fact the restriction 
applied to export refunds in respect of motor vehicle tax on the basis of the 
duration for which a vehicle has been used is incompatible with primary EU law, 
with the result that A should have been refunded the motor vehicle tax remaining 
payable on the value of the vehicle at the time of export. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Can the provisions on the free movement of goods in Title II of Part Three 
of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Article 110 TFEU 
preclude legislation of a Member State under which, in circumstances such as 
those in the main proceedings, the motor vehicle tax included in the value of a 
vehicle within the meaning of the Autoverolaki (1482/1994) (Law on motor 
vehicle tax [1482/1994]) is not refunded to the owner of the vehicle where he or 
she exports the vehicle for use on a permanent basis in another Member State, and 
is it relevant in that connection whether the vehicle was intended to be used on a 
permanent basis primarily in the territory of the Member State which levied the 
motor vehicle tax and whether it was actually used on a permanent basis primarily 
in that territory? 
2. If the intention of use of the vehicle and its actual use are relevant to the 
answer to the first question, how is such intention of use on a non-permanent basis 
and such actual use on a non-permanent basis to be demonstrated in so far as the 
duration for which a private vehicle is to be used in the Member State cannot be 
determined in advance? 
3. If the refusal to grant an export refund within the meaning of the Law on 
motor vehicle tax constitutes a restriction on the free movement of goods in 
circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, can that restriction be 
justified by the objective of limiting the export of old vehicles which are often in 
poor condition and pollute the environment? Is the restriction of the export refund 
to vehicles less than ten years old to be regarded as being incompatible with EU 
law on the ground that motor vehicle tax is nevertheless levied on imported used 
vehicles irrespective of the duration for which they have been used? 
Provisions of EU law relied on 
Articles 28, 30, 34 to 36 and 110 TFEU 
Case-law of the Court of Justice relied on 
Judgment of 21 March 2002, Cura Anlagen, C-451/99, EU:C:2002:195, 
paragraphs 35, 40 and 71 
Judgment of 23 April 2002, Nygård, C-234/99, EU:C:2002:244, paragraph 38 
VERONSAAJIEN OIKEUDENVALVONTAYKSIKKÖ 
 
3 
Judgment of 19 September 2002, Tulliasiamies and Siilin, C-101/00, 
EU:C:2002:505, paragraphs 61, 80 and 110 
Judgment of 15 September 2005, Commission v Denmark, C-464/02, 
EU:C:2005:546, paragraphs 76, 78 and 79 
Order of 27 June 2006, van de Coevering, C-242/05, EU:C:2006:430, 
paragraphs 27 and 29 
Order of 22 May 2008, Ilhan, C-42/08, EU:C:2008:305, paragraphs 11 and 25 
Order of 29 September 2010, VAV-Autovermietung, C-91/10, EU:C:2010:558, 
paragraphs 26, 27 and 30 
Judgment of 26 April 2012, van Putten and Others, Joined Cases C-578/10 to 
C-580/10, EU:C:2012:246, paragraph 54 
Judgment of 29 September 2016, Essent Belgium, C-492/14, EU:C:2016:732, 
paragraphs 101 and 104 
Judgment of 19 September 2017, Commission v Ireland, C-552/15, 
EU:C:2017:698, paragraphs 84 and 108 
Judgment of 17 December 2015, Viamar, C-402/14, EU:C:2015:830, 
paragraph 46 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Levying of motor vehicle tax on a used vehicle imported from another Member 
State 
According to Paragraph 1(1) of the Law on motor vehicle tax, motor vehicle tax 
on, inter alia, passenger cars (category M1) must be paid to the State before they 
are registered in the Motor Vehicle Register (‘the Register’) or brought into use in 
Finland, in accordance with the provisions of this Law. 
According to Paragraph 4(1) of the Law on motor vehicle tax, the person who is 
entered in the register as the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the motor vehicle 
tax. 
According to subparagraph (5) of that provision, in the case where a vehicle is 
brought into use without having been registered, the person who brought it into 
use is liable to pay the tax. If the person who brought the vehicle into use cannot 
be identified or the tax cannot be collected from him or her, the owner of the 
vehicle brought into use is liable to pay the tax. 
According to Paragraph 8a of the Law on motor vehicle tax, the motor vehicle tax 
on a vehicle taxed as a used vehicle in Finland is to correspond to the lowest 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-676/21 
 
4  
amount of motor vehicle tax remaining payable on a vehicle registered in Finland 
and considered to be equivalent. 
According to Paragraph 11e(1) of the Law on motor vehicle tax, when 
determining the general retail value of a vehicle in Finland, account shall be taken 
of the available evidence regarding the factors determining the retail value of the 
vehicle in the motor vehicle trade, and regarding the value of the vehicle and the 
characteristics of the vehicle that affect its value, such as the make, model, type, 
drive system and equipment of the vehicle. In addition, the age, mileage and 
condition of the vehicle and other individual characteristics may be taken into 
account. 
According to Paragraph 11d of the Law on motor vehicle tax, vehicles can be 
regarded as being equivalent if they are identical in terms of make, model and 
equipment. Where vehicles type-approved in different countries are compared, the 
vehicles must be technically equivalent from a factual perspective, in addition to 
the documented information. 
Refund of motor vehicle tax upon export 
According to Paragraph 34d(1) of the Law on motor vehicle tax, motor vehicle tax 
is refunded on application where a vehicle taxed in Finland is exported for use on 
a permanent basis in a country other than Finland (export refund). 
According to subparagraph 2 of that same provision, the amount of tax that would 
be levied on an equivalent vehicle if it were taxed as a used vehicle at the time 
when it is exported from Finland is to be refunded. The tax refunded is not to 
exceed that which has been paid on the vehicle. Moreover, tax is not to be 
refunded in so far as the value of the vehicle or the tax payable on the vehicle has 
increased due to modifications or improvements in the equipment after taxation. 
The tax is also not to be refunded where the amount to be refunded would be less 
than EUR 500. Furthermore, tax is not to be refunded in respect of a vehicle 
which was first brought into use at least ten years before the time of export. The 
refund is conditional on the vehicle being in a roadworthy condition at the end of 
its use in Finland. It is also conditional on the vehicle having been taken out of use 
in Finland. 
In the travaux préparatoires for the law by which the export refund system has 
been regulated, it is stated, inter alia, that it is proposed to insert in the Law on 
motor vehicle tax a provision that would allow for a refund of the motor vehicle 
tax remaining payable on the value of the vehicle when a used vehicle is exported 
for use on a permanent basis. The proposed amendment is necessary due to 
requirements under Community law, in so far as vehicles leased from another 
Member State for a fixed period of time are concerned. The refund of the motor 
vehicle tax remaining payable on the value of the vehicle when the leasing 
contract ends and the vehicle is returned for use in another Member State takes 
into account the duration of the leasing contract and the duration for which the 
VERONSAAJIEN OIKEUDENVALVONTAYKSIKKÖ 
 
5 
vehicle has been used in Finland. It can therefore be assumed that the refund 
system complies with the abovementioned requirements of Community law. 
For passenger cars, the proposal would be in line with the motor vehicle tax 
refund system which was proposed by the Commission in its proposal for a 
directive (COM(2005) 261 final) and was intended to prevent double taxation of 
vehicles in different Member States. 
The portion of tax to be refunded would be that remaining in the value of the 
vehicle at the time of export. If a higher amount of tax were refunded, this would 
constitute export aid prohibited under Community law. The granting of the refund 
requires that both the value of the vehicle and the portion of tax contained in the 
value be established. For reasons pertaining to Community law and administrative 
aspects, it is appropriate to apply to the determination of the value the same rules 
and methods as those for determining the value of imported used vehicles. This 
would ensure that the determination of the value of used vehicles upon import and 
that upon export would be mirror images of each other. Therefore, it is proposed 
that the value of the vehicle be based on the general retail value of the vehicle in 
the vehicle trade, as defined in the Law on motor vehicle tax. This is also justified 
in terms of equal treatment of the recipients of the refund. 
It is also proposed that the export refund be limited to cases where the portion of 
motor vehicle tax remaining in the value of the vehicle exceeds a certain limit. It 
is proposed in the draft law that tax is not to be refunded if the amount to be 
refunded is less than EUR 1 000. The refund would also be conditional on no 
more than ten years having elapsed since the vehicle was first brought into use. In 
addition, the vehicle must be roadworthy. By its nature, motor vehicle tax is not a 
tax linked to the duration of use, but rather is based on the point at which a vehicle 
is brought into use and registered. The tax is not refunded if the use of the vehicle 
in the national territory comes to an end before the expiry of its expected useful 
life, for example because it has been destroyed. Therefore, it would also not be 
logical to grant a refund in the case of a low-value vehicle which is to be exported 
or a vehicle which is to be exported for scrapping. Furthermore, there would be no 
environmental justification for encouraging the export of older vehicles, because 
the problems associated with them would merely be transferred from one country 
to another. 
Furthermore, the refund would be conditional on the vehicle being in a 
roadworthy condition at the end of its use in Finland and being registered for use 
on the road in a country other than Finland. By contrast, it would not be necessary 
for motor vehicle tax to have been paid in connection with the registration in 
another country. Roadworthiness could be demonstrated, for example, by the fact 
that the vehicle has successfully undergone technical inspections. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-676/21 
 
6  
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 On 20 July 2015, A imported a used BMW B3 Alpina passenger car into Finland 
from another Member State. The vehicle was first brought into use on 
24 November 2004. 
2 By motor vehicle tax assessment notice dated 5 October 2015, the tax 
administration levied motor vehicle tax of EUR 4 146.29 on the vehicle. The 
motor vehicle tax was determined on the basis of the taxable value established for 
the vehicle, in the amount of EUR 16 519.10, and a tax rate of 25.10%. 
3 A sold the vehicle to a party in another Member State and applied to the tax 
administration for a motor vehicle tax refund on 7 August 2017. The vehicle was 
taken out of use in Finland on 21 August 2017. 
4 By decision of 21 August 2017, the tax administration refused A’s application for 
a motor vehicle tax refund. The decision was justified on the ground that, under 
Paragraph 34d(2) of the Law on motor vehicle tax, motor vehicle tax is not to be 
refunded in respect of a vehicle which was first brought into use at least ten years 
before the time of export. 
5 A lodged an objection to the decision on the export refund in respect of motor 
vehicle tax. In the grounds for his objection, A asserted, inter alia, that the refusal 
to grant export refunds in the case of vehicles more than ten years old was 
discriminatory and contrary to the Treaty of Accession to the European Union. 
6 By decision of 1 February 2018, the tax administration rejected A’s objection. 
According to the grounds for the decision, A had not presented any ground under 
EU law on the basis of which export refunds must be paid in respect of his 
vehicle. No facts showing that the motor vehicle taxation imposed was 
discriminatory or contrary to EU law or the case-law of the EU Courts had been 
presented or had arisen in the case. 
7 A brought an action against that decision before the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus 
(Administrative Court, Helsinki, Finland). 
8 That court dismissed A’s action by judgment of 6 March 2019 on the ground that 
A was not entitled to a refund of the motor vehicle tax. In its judgment, it stated 
that the provisions on export refunds in respect of motor vehicle tax and the 
applicable time limits apply in a uniform manner to all taxpayers and that the time 
limit for export refunds in respect of motor vehicle tax cannot therefore be 
regarded as an infringement of EU law. 
9 A has challenged the judgment of the Administrative Court before the Korkein 
hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court, Finland) and seeks, inter alia, a 
refund of the motor vehicle tax. 
VERONSAAJIEN OIKEUDENVALVONTAYKSIKKÖ 
 
7 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
10 In his appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court, A has submitted that, in 
the context of the import and export of vehicles, taxation and refunds should be 
mirror images of each other, irrespective of the age of the vehicle. According to 
A, motor vehicle tax is levied on imported vehicles that are more than ten years 
old, as was the case with A’s vehicle at issue in 2015. If no export refund in 
respect of motor vehicle tax is paid for vehicles which are more than ten years old, 
motor vehicle tax should not be levied on corresponding imported used vehicles 
either. 
11 A takes the view that motor vehicle tax remained payable on his vehicle at the 
time of its export in 2017. Moreover, the vehicle was not of low value or due to be 
scrapped. 
12 He submits that the refusal to grant export refunds in the case of vehicles over ten 
years old was discriminatory and contrary to EU law. The approach applied 
restricts trade and the free movement of goods between Member States. 
13 The Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö (Tax Recipients’ Legal Services Unit) 
argued before the Supreme Administrative Court that the principle of non-
discrimination in EU law does not prevent the national legislature from laying 
down age-related rules for goods. It submits that the principle of non-
discrimination is not intended to ensure that vehicles of different ages are treated 
equally for tax purposes or by the legislature. The age limit applicable to export 
refunds does not infringe the principle of proportionality. 
14 The non-refund of motor vehicle tax is also not prohibited by the provisions on the 
free movement of goods or the provisions on customs duties and charges having 
equivalent effect, since it does not concern taxation in a cross-border situation. 
15 EU law does not contain any legal principle requiring the national legislature to 
ensure that a non-harmonised national tax or charge is refunded when goods are 
sold to another Member State. Finland was therefore able to exclude from the 
export refund vehicles which had been registered more than ten years previously 
and on which motor vehicle tax had been paid, without any provisions of primary 
law precluding such an approach. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
Questions referred 
16 It follows from the abovementioned case-law of the Court on leased, hired, loaned 
and service vehicles that, without prejudice to the Treaties establishing the 
European Union, a Member State may levy motor vehicle tax on such a vehicle 
registered in another Member State without the amount of the tax having to be 
made proportionate to the duration for which the vehicle has been used in that 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-676/21 
 
8  
Member State, where the vehicle is intended to be used on a permanent basis 
principally in that Member State or is in fact used on a permanent basis there. 
Although the tax liability in those circumstances constitutes a restriction of a 
fundamental freedom, that restriction can be justified by the need for equal 
treatment of taxable persons. 
17 By contrast, in cases where imported leased, hired, loaned or service vehicles are 
not intended to be used principally in the Member State concerned on a permanent 
basis or are not in fact used principally in that Member State on a permanent basis, 
the restriction on the fundamental freedom must be justified by another 
circumstance arising from the obligation to pay motor vehicle tax. In such cases, 
the principle of proportionality also requires that the amount of motor vehicle tax 
be made proportionate to the duration for which the vehicle has been used in the 
Member State concerned. 
18 The abovementioned case-law of the Court does not contain any requirements 
concerning the duration for which the vehicle has been used. 
19 In the present case, A acquired a used vehicle in another Member State of the 
European Union, which he brought to Finland and registered for use on the road in 
that country. After using the vehicle in Finland for approximately three years, he 
sold it to a party in another Member State. In connection with the registration, A 
was charged the full amount of motor vehicle tax on the vehicle without the 
purpose of use of the vehicle being determined first, as that circumstance was not 
relevant for the purposes of applying the Law on motor vehicle tax. Furthermore, 
the amount of motor vehicle tax levied upon export of the vehicle was not made 
proportionate to the duration for which it had in fact been used in Finland, since, 
under the Law on motor vehicle tax, motor vehicle tax is not refunded in respect 
of vehicles that are over ten years old at the time of export. 
20 The Supreme Administrative Court takes the view that the case-law of the Court 
to date does not provide an answer to the question as to whether the principles 
outlined above in paragraphs 16 to 18 are also applicable in the case of a private 
vehicle which ceases to be used in the territory of a Member State because it is 
exported to another Member State for use on a permanent basis, and whether, in 
that case also, the amount of motor vehicle tax must be made proportionate to the 
duration for which the vehicle has been used in the Member State concerned, 
where the vehicle was not intended to be used principally in the Member State 
concerned on a permanent basis or was not in fact used principally in that Member 
State on a permanent basis. 
21 Although the subject matter of the main proceedings concerns the question as to 
whether the limitation to a 10-year duration of use as provided for in the Law on 
motor vehicle tax in relation to export refunds in respect of motor vehicle tax is 
compatible with EU law, the Supreme Administrative Court takes the view that 
this case raises, to a wider extent, the fundamental question as to the levying of 
VERONSAAJIEN OIKEUDENVALVONTAYKSIKKÖ 
 
9 
motor vehicle tax and its proportionality, in particular in the light of the Court’s 
case-law to date on vehicle taxation. 
First question referred 
22 In the case-law of the Court to date, the possibility for a Member State to levy 
taxes such as motor vehicle tax has been assessed in the light of the provisions of 
the founding Treaties on the freedom of movement of workers, the freedom to 
provide services and the free movement of capital. 
23 In order for the question concerning private vehicles described above to be 
relevant in the first place, the Supreme Administrative Court states that it is first 
necessary to identify the provision or provisions of the Treaty which are relevant 
to the assessment of the possibilities for a Member State to exercise its fiscal 
sovereignty in respect of vehicles imported or exported as private vehicles. 
24 Thus, the Supreme Administrative Court first asks whether the provisions on the 
free movement of goods in Title II of Part Three of the TFEU may preclude 
legislation of a Member State under which the motor vehicle tax payable on the 
value of a private vehicle is not made proportionate to the duration for which the 
vehicle has been used in the Member State concerned by means of a tax refund 
where the vehicle is exported in order to be used on a permanent basis in another 
Member State. 
25 In its judgment in Viamar, the Court stated that Article 30 TFEU must be 
interpreted as precluding a practice by a Member State by which the registration 
tax collected upon import of motor vehicles originating from other Member States 
is not refunded when the vehicles concerned are re-exported to another Member 
State. However, unlike the present case, that dispute concerned vehicles that had 
never been registered for use on the road in the Member State concerned before 
being exported to another Member State. 
26 The Supreme Administrative Court also refers to the Commission’s Proposal for a 
Council Directive on passenger car related taxes (COM[/2005/]0261 final), which 
had as one of its objectives the improvement of the functioning of the internal 
market and which contained provisions for a refund system for registration tax in 
cases where registration tax has been paid in a Member State in respect of a 
passenger car which has subsequently been exported from the Union or brought 
into the territory of another Member State in order to be used on a permanent 
basis. The following is stated in the Explanatory Memorandum to the proposal 
(emphasis added): 
‘Diverging passenger car related taxes can result in serious obstacles for the free 
movement of persons and goods. 
(…) 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-676/21 
 
10  
The Internal Market is intended to benefit the free movement of persons as well as 
the free movement of goods for personal and for commercial purposes. 
[Registration taxes] create obstacles to these freedoms.’ 
27 The Commission has since also addressed that issue in its Communication to the 
European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social 
Committee – Strengthening the Single Market by removing cross-border tax 
obstacles for passenger cars (COM[/2012/]0756 final). 
28 According to the understanding of the Supreme Administrative Court, it might be 
argued that the levying of motor vehicle tax without making the amount of the tax 
proportionate to the duration for which a vehicle has been used in a Member State 
is liable to restrict trade in used vehicles in the internal market, since, as a 
component included in its value, it affects the resale price of the vehicle. In the 
travaux préparatoires for the Law on motor vehicle tax, the restriction to be 
applied to export refunds in respect of motor vehicle tax on the basis of the 
duration for which a vehicle has been used was also expressly justified by the 
objective of limiting the export of older vehicles. The Supreme Administrative 
Court also states that, under Paragraph 34d of the Law on motor vehicle tax, the 
export refund in respect of vehicle tax is based on the fact that a vehicle taxed in 
Finland is exported for use on a permanent basis outside Finland – and not, for 
example, on the fact that the vehicle ceases to be used on the road in Finland. 
29 On the other hand, it is stated in the case-law of the Court, in its judgment in 
Tulliasiamies and Siilin, that the motor vehicle tax provided for in the Finnish 
Law on motor vehicle tax is to be regarded as part of the general system of 
internal taxation payable on goods and must therefore be assessed in the light of 
Article 110 TFEU. In the light of that, and in view of the fact that, in accordance 
with the case-law, the same tax or charge cannot, according to the scheme of the 
Treaty establishing the European Union, be considered to be covered by both the 
concept of ‘internal taxation’ within the meaning of Article 110 TFEU and the 
concept of ‘charges having equivalent effect’ within the meaning of Articles 28 
and 30 TFEU, the motor vehicle tax levied in Finland is not a charge having 
equivalent effect within the meaning of Articles 28 and 30 TFEU. For that reason, 
it might therefore also be argued that the compatibility of the non-refund of the 
motor vehicle tax with the Treaties establishing the European Union must be 
assessed against Article 110 TFEU and not against the provisions on the free 
movement of goods in Title II of Part Three of the TFEU. 
30 With regard to Article 110 TFEU, the Supreme Administrative Court also states 
that, although the age limit for export refunds in respect of vehicle tax contained 
in the Finnish Law on motor vehicle tax formally applies to all vehicles that are 
over ten years old, irrespective of whether the vehicles were first registered in 
Finland or whether they were imported as used vehicles, it might be argued that 
the actual effects of the restriction concern vehicles which were not first registered 
in Finland. This is because, in the case where a vehicle first registered in Finland 
and used on the road in that country for ten years is sold to another Member State, 
VERONSAAJIEN OIKEUDENVALVONTAYKSIKKÖ 
 
11 
this undoubtedly constitutes a case of use on a permanent basis in Finland and 
therefore a situation in which motor vehicle tax can be levied in full in any event. 
From that point of view, it might therefore be assumed that the non-refund of 
motor vehicle tax is at least indirectly discriminatory vis-à-vis used vehicles 
imported from other Member States. 
31 The Supreme Administrative Court takes the view that the above considerations 
would appear to support the interpretation that provisions of Member States on 
registration taxes, such as motor vehicle tax, may in certain circumstances be 
incompatible with the provisions on the free movement of goods in Title II of Part 
Three of the TFEU or with Article 110 TFEU where the motor vehicle tax payable 
on the value of the vehicle is not refunded to the owner of the vehicle when the 
vehicle is exported for use on a permanent basis in another Member State. 
32 On the other hand, it might also be assumed on the basis of the case-law of the 
Court that the non-refund of motor vehicle tax in circumstances such as those in 
the present case is not incompatible with the provisions of Title II of Part Three of 
the TFEU or with Article 110 TFEU, at least not solely on the ground that the 
non-refund of the tax could lead to double taxation of the vehicle. 
33 In its judgment in Nygård, the Court held that ‘as it stands at present, Community 
law does not contain any provision designed to prohibit the effects of double 
taxation occurring in the case of charges, such as that in issue in the main 
proceedings, which are governed by independent national legislation, and, while 
the elimination of such effects is desirable in the interests of the free movement of 
goods, it may nonetheless result only from the harmonisation of national 
systems …’. 
34 That statement can be understood to mean that, as EU law stands at present, the 
negative effects of taxes levied on vehicles, such as motor vehicle tax, on the free 
movement of goods can be eliminated only by adopting measures to harmonise 
the laws of the Member States, as provided for in Article 113 TFEU. It was 
precisely for that purpose that the Commission submitted the abovementioned 
Proposal for a Council Directive on passenger car related taxes, which, however, 
was not adopted by the Council. 
35 However, taking into account, inter alia, the case-law of the Court on leased, 
hired, loaned and service vehicles and the abovementioned judgment in Viamar, 
in which the refusal to refund registration tax, such as motor vehicle tax, was 
considered to be a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty within the 
meaning of Article 30 TFEU, the Supreme Administrative Court takes the view 
that it cannot be ruled out that that provision or other provisions concerning the 
free movement of goods or Article 110 TFEU also apply to situations such as that 
in the present case. 
36 In that context, the Supreme Administrative Court takes the view that it must also 
be considered whether, in the case of private vehicles, it can be assumed at all that 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-676/21 
 
12  
such a vehicle is not intended to be used primarily in the territory of a particular 
Member State on a permanent basis within the meaning of the case-law of the 
Court and is not in fact used on a permanent basis there. 
37 On the one hand, it might be argued that a private vehicle imported from another 
Member State is, in principle, always intended to be used primarily in the 
importing Member State on a permanent basis. In that case, it might be assumed 
that the ownership of the vehicle at least gives rise to the presumption that the 
vehicle is intended to be used primarily in the Member State concerned on a 
permanent basis. Moreover, a private vehicle imported from another Member 
State no longer has a link with another Member State, as is the case, for example, 
with a vehicle hired or borrowed from a party in another Member State. 
38 On the other hand, it might be argued that a presumption of intention to use a 
private vehicle on a permanent basis and of actual use of that vehicle on a 
permanent basis, as described above, leads to different treatment of the 
arrangements on which the possession and use of a vehicle may be based, 
depending solely on the legal form of the possession and use of a vehicle. This is 
because it is conceivable that, as in the case of leased, hired, loaned and service 
vehicles, a private vehicle may be intended for use on a non-permanent basis in 
the territory of another Member State, or that a private vehicle has not in fact been 
used on a permanent basis in the territory of a Member State. A private vehicle 
may also be imported with the intention to use it for a very short period of time or 
may in fact be used in the territory of the country concerned for only a very short 
period of time. In such cases, the levying of motor vehicle tax without taking into 
account the duration for which the vehicle has been used in the Member State 
concerned may be disproportionate. 
39 Since it is unclear from the case-law of the Court to date whether the provisions of 
the Treaty establishing the European Union on the free movement of goods or 
Article 110 TFEU may, in the light of the foregoing, restrict the possibility for a 
Member State to levy registration taxes such as motor vehicle tax in the present 
context, the first question is referred for a preliminary ruling. 
Second question referred 
40 Unlike, for example, in the case of hired and leased vehicles, it is often not 
possible in the case of private vehicles to provide objectively verifiable evidence 
of the intention to use the vehicle on a temporary basis or of actual use on a 
temporary basis in advance. Therefore, the Supreme Administrative Court 
concludes that the duration for which the private vehicle has been used and the 
actual nature of its use must be assessed retrospectively on the basis of the actual 
duration for which the vehicle has been used and other relevant considerations. 
VERONSAAJIEN OIKEUDENVALVONTAYKSIKKÖ 
 
13 
Third question referred 
41 If it is considered that the provisions on the free movement of goods in Title II of 
Part Three of the TFEU preclude, in principle, legislation of a Member State 
under which the portion of motor vehicle tax payable on the value of a vehicle is 
not to be refunded to the owner of a vehicle when he or she exports a vehicle 
which was not intended to be used primarily in the territory of the first Member 
State on a permanent basis, and which was not in fact used primarily in that 
Member State on a permanent basis, for use on a permanent basis in another 
Member State, the question arises as to whether the restriction in question can be 
justified on the ground that it is intended to limit the export of older vehicles. 
42 In the explanatory memorandum to the Law on motor vehicle tax, the restriction 
of export refunds in respect of motor vehicle tax to vehicles that are less than ten 
years old was justified with the aim of ‘[limiting] the often environmentally 
harmful export of older vehicles or vehicles due to be scrapped’. 
43 According to settled case-law of the Court, national measures that are capable of 
hindering intra-EU trade may inter alia be justified by overriding requirements 
relating to protection of the environment. However, such measures must be 
appropriate for ensuring attainment of the objective pursued and must comply 
with the principle of proportionality. 
44 In the present case, it must therefore be assessed, first, whether the restriction of 
export refunds in respect of the motor vehicle tax to vehicles which were brought 
into use less than ten years before the time of export is a reasonable measure for 
achieving the abovementioned objective of environmental protection and, second, 
whether that measure complies with the principle of proportionality. The principle 
of proportionality requires that, in order for the measure to be justified, the 
objective cannot be attained without the restriction in question. 
45 The Supreme Administrative Court states that the restriction of the export refund 
to vehicles registered less than ten years ago does not mean that, in practice, the 
refusal of the refund exclusively affects vehicles that are harmful from an 
environmental point of view, as also stated in the abovementioned explanatory 
memorandum to the Law on motor vehicle tax. 
46 Second, the explanatory memorandum to the Law on motor vehicle tax does not 
explain why the objective relating to the export of older vehicles or vehicles due 
to be scrapped cannot be attained by another measure less restrictive of the free 
movement of goods, for example by refusing the refund in the case of vehicles 
that have been found to be actually harmful to the environment. 
47 The Supreme Administrative Court also states that motor tax is levied on vehicles 
imported into Finland irrespective of when they were first registered in another 
Member State. The restriction on export refunds on the basis of the duration for 
which the vehicle has been used therefore has the effect that the taxation of 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-676/21 
 
14  
imported vehicles differs solely on the basis of the age at which the vehicle is used 
on the road in Finland.