Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2002 in Case C-101/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the korkein hallinto-oikeus): Tulliasiamies, v Antti Siilin (Taxation of imported used cars — First paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, first paragraph of Article 90 EC) — Sixth VAT Directive)
Date: 2002-11-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Finland, VAT, import, interpretation of the law, vehicle tax

C 274/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9.11.2002

4. Orders Falck SpA and Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA to share the

costs in Cases C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P;

5. Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs in Cases

C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P.

( 1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.

mission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92, but precludes the taxable value from varying
according to the marketing stage where this may result, at least
in certain cases, in the amount of the tax on an imported used
car exceeding the amount of the residual tax incorporated in the
value of a similar used car already registered in the national
territory.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 19 September 2002

in Case C-101/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the korkein hallinto-oikeus): Tulliasiamies, v Antti
Siilin (1)

(Taxation of imported used cars — First paragraph of Article
95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, first paragraph
of Article 90 EC) — Sixth VAT Directive)

(2002/C 274/08)

(Language of the case: Finnish)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-101/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court brought
by Tulliasiamies, and Antti Siilin, on the interpretation of the
first paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, the first paragraph of Article 90 EC) and of the
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), in the version of
Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992
amending Directive 77/388/EEC and introducing simplifi-
cation measures with regard to value added tax (OJ 1992
L 384, p. 47), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
President of
the Chamber, S. von Bahr, A. La Pergola,
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September
2002, in which it has ruled:

1.

The first paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, the first paragraph of Article 90 EC) allows a
Member State to apply to used vehicles imported from another
Member State a system of taxation under which the taxable
value is determined by reference to the customs value as defined
by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October
1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Com-

2.

The first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty precludes a
Member State from applying to used cars imported from
another Member State a system of taxation under which the
tax on those vehicles

— is equal, during the first six months from the registration
or bringing into use of the vehicle, to the tax charged on
a similar new vehicle, and

— is equal, from the 7th to the 150th month of use of the
vehicle, to the tax on a similar new vehicle, with a linear
reduction by a percentage of 0,5 % per full calendar
month,

taxation does not

since such a system of
take the actual
depreciation of the vehicle into account and does not provide a
guarantee that the amount of tax it determines will in no case
exceed the residual tax incorporated in the value of a similar
used car already registered in the national territory.

3. Where a Member State applies to used cars imported from
other Member States a system of taxation under which the
actual depreciation of the vehicles is defined in a general and
abstract way on the basis of criteria laid down by national law,
the first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty requires that
system of taxation to be arranged in such a way, making
allowance for the reasonable approximations inherent in any
system of that type, as to exclude any discriminatory effect. That
requirement presupposes, first, that the criteria on which the
flat-rate method of calculating the depreciation of vehicles is
based are made public and, second, that the owner of a used
vehicle imported from another Member State is able to challenge
the application of a flat-rate method of calculation to that
vehicle, which may mean that its particular characteristics have
to be examined in order to ensure that the tax applied to it does
not exceed the residual tax incorporated in the value of a similar
used vehicle already registered in the national territory.

4. A tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings, described
in national
law as ‘value added tax’ on car tax, does not
constitute ‘value added tax’ within the meaning of the Sixth
Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
basis of assessment, in the version of Council Directive 92/
111/EEC of 14 December 1992 amending Directive 77/388/
EEC and introducing simplification measures with regard to
value added tax, and is compatible with Article 33 of that
directive.

9.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 274/7

5.

The first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty precludes the
levying of a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings,
which is payable on car tax, in so far as the amount charged as
such a tax on a used car imported from another Member State
exceeds the amount of the residual tax incorporated in the value
of a similar used car already registered in the national territory.

( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 19 September 2002

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 19 September 2002

in Case C-113/00: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(State aid — Agriculture — Aid for horticultural products
intended for industrial processing in Extremadura —
Article 87(1) and (3)(a) and (c) EC — Small amount of aid
— No comments from parties concerned — Operating aid
— Aid relating to products subject to a common organisation
of the market — Restrictions on the free movement of goods
— Statement of reasons)

in Case C-104/00 P: DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung
AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 — Word ‘Companyline’ — Absolute ground for
refusal — Distinctive character)

(2002/C 274/10)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(2002/C 274/09)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-104/00 P, DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG
(represented by: S. von Petersdorff-Campen): Appeal against
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 12 January 2000 in Case
T-19/99 DKV v OHIM (COMPANYLINE) [2000] ECR II-1,
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
proceedings being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von
Mühlendahl and D. Schennen), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
S. von Bahr, M. Wathelet, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 19 September 2002, in which it:

In Case C-113/00, Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamon-
de) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
D. Triantafyllou): Application for annulment of Commission
Decision 2000/237/EC of 22 December 1999 concerning an
aid scheme implemented by Spain in favour of horticultural
products intended for industrial processing in Extremadura in
the 1997/98 marketing year (OJ 2000 L 75, p. 54), the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: P.
the
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and
C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advo-
cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
19 September 2002, in which it:

Jann, President of

1. Dismisses the application;

1. Dismisses the appeal;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

2. Orders DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG to pay the

costs.

(1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.

( 1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.