Case C‑175/14

Ralph Prankl

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Directive 92/12/EEC — General arrangements for products subject to excise duty — Imposition of duty on smuggled goods — Goods released for consumption in one Member State and transported to another Member State — Determination of the competent Member State — Right of the transit State to impose duty on those goods’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 5 March 2015

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Excise duties — Directive 92/12 — Products subject to excise duty — Determination of the Member State in which excise duty is chargeable — Goods smuggled into the territory of one Member State and then transported to and discovered in the territory of another Member State — Whether excise duty is chargeable in a transit Member State — Not permissible

(Council Directive 92/12, Arts 7(1), (2), and (4), and 9(1))

Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 9(1) of Directive 92/12 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Directive 92/108, must be interpreted as meaning that, where goods subject to excise duty that have been smuggled into the territory of a Member State are transported, without the accompanying document prescribed in Article 7(4) of that directive, to another Member State, in the territory of which those goods are discovered by the competent authorities, the transit Member States are not also permitted to levy excise duty on the driver of the heavy goods vehicle who transported them for having held those goods for commercial purposes in their territory.

It cannot reasonably be maintained that the EU legislature intended to favour the prevention of abuse and evasion by generally allowing, in cases where products subject to excise duty are unlawfully transported, all the transit Member States to levy excise duty. Such a levy of the excise duty in the transit Member States, which may lead to multiple taxation, is not necessary to prevent abuse and evasion since both the importing Member State and the Member State of destination are known and it is common ground that the goods were delivered in the latter State.

(see paras 27, 29, 32, operative part)

Case C‑175/14

Ralph Prankl

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Directive 92/12/EEC — General arrangements for products subject to excise duty — Imposition of duty on smuggled goods — Goods released for consumption in one Member State and transported to another Member State — Determination of the competent Member State — Right of the transit State to impose duty on those goods’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 5 March 2015

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Excise duties — Directive 92/12 — Products subject to excise duty — Determination of the Member State in which excise duty is chargeable — Goods smuggled into the territory of one Member State and then transported to and discovered in the territory of another Member State — Whether excise duty is chargeable in a transit Member State — Not permissible

(Council Directive 92/12, Arts 7(1), (2), and (4), and 9(1))

Article 7(1) and (2) and Article 9(1) of Directive 92/12 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Directive 92/108, must be interpreted as meaning that, where goods subject to excise duty that have been smuggled into the territory of a Member State are transported, without the accompanying document prescribed in Article 7(4) of that directive, to another Member State, in the territory of which those goods are discovered by the competent authorities, the transit Member States are not also permitted to levy excise duty on the driver of the heavy goods vehicle who transported them for having held those goods for commercial purposes in their territory.

It cannot reasonably be maintained that the EU legislature intended to favour the prevention of abuse and evasion by generally allowing, in cases where products subject to excise duty are unlawfully transported, all the transit Member States to levy excise duty. Such a levy of the excise duty in the transit Member States, which may lead to multiple taxation, is not necessary to prevent abuse and evasion since both the importing Member State and the Member State of destination are known and it is common ground that the goods were delivered in the latter State.

(see paras 27, 29, 32, operative part)