Case C-10/08: Action brought on 9 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland
Date: 2008-01-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, VAT, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, sale, tax relief, vehicle tax

C 79/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.3.2008

— the driving licence was obtained by the person concerned
in the other Member State through an abusive exercise of
rights in order
the
residence, which, according to the
Member State of
Directive, are the provisions which determine reissue, and
the issuing Member State must have been aware of that
abusive exercise of rights,

the provisions of

to circumvent

— and the medical examination to determine the fitness of
the person concerned to drive, carried out before issue of
the driving licence in knowledge of the reasons for the
original withdrawal of the driving licence in the issuing
the requirements
Member State, clearly did not meet
imposed on it in view of the grounds for the earlier with-
drawal of the driving licence, with the result that the
continued presence on the roads of the person involved
represents a significant danger to the life and physical
safety of other road users?

In the event that the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

2. Is Article 8(2) of Directive 91/439/EEC to be interpreted as
meaning that while, in the circumstances described in Ques-
tion 1, the Member State of residence is obliged to recognise
the driving licence issued in another Member State of the
European Union, with the result that, within its national
territory, the holder is in principle entitled to drive motor
vehicles, the Member State of residence is, in the interests of
road safety, none the less at the very least empowered, in
order to safeguard against the significant danger presented
by this licence holder, to verify his fitness to drive in view of
the circumstances which previously led to the withdrawal of
the driving licence in the Member State of residence and
which, because of the subsequent issue of the driving licence
in another Member State of the European Union, precisely
cannot be regarded as having been overcome?

(1) OJ L 237, p. 1.

Action brought on 9 January 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-10/08)

(2008/C 79/29)

Language of the case: Finnish

Form of order sought

— declare that, by maintaining in force Paragraph 5 of the
Autoverolaki (Law on car tax) and Paragraph 102(1)(4) of
the Arvonlisäverolaki (Law on value added tax), applying, for
the purposes of car tax assessment, the same taxable value
to cars under three months old as to new cars and applying
to cars under six months old a scale according to which the
value of a car decreases by 0,8 % per month in circum-
stances where it has not been established that there are any
such vehicles on the Finnish market, the Republic of Finland
has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 90 of the
EC Treaty and that, by allowing the tax under Paragraph 5
of the Autoverolaki to be deducted from the value added tax
its obligations
payable on sale, Finland has failed to fulfil
under Article 17(1) and (2) of Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC (1), replaced after
the recasting of Directive
77/388/EEC by Articles 167 and 168 of Council Directive
2006/112/EC (2);

— order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

A person liable for value added tax who imports a vehicle into
Finland has to pay value added tax on car tax to the customs
authorities in accordance with Paragraph 5 of the Autoverolaki,
but since, according to Paragraph 102(1)(4) of the Arvonlisäver-
olaki, he can deduct the corresponding amount of VAT payable
on the sale, there is no VAT on car tax left in the value of the
vehicle. The VAT on car tax which has been deducted is not
transferred to the amount the consumer has to pay. If a private
individual registers a vehicle for the first time in Finland he also
has to pay VAT on car tax to the customs authorities but he
cannot deduct it. That system, which distinguishes between sales
by persons liable to VAT related to commercial activities at
different stages of trade and acquisitions by final consumers
from other Member States means that the VAT on car tax that a
private individual has to pay for a used vehicle obtained in
time in
another Member State and registered for
Finland is probably higher than the residual VAT on car tax in
the value of a similar used car which has already been registered
in Finland when the person liable to car tax was also liable to
VAT and the vehicle has been sold in connection with taxable
commercial activities,
the
vehicle does not include VAT on car tax because it has been
deducted in its entirety, infringes Article 90 of the EC Treaty.

in which latter case the value of

the first

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: I. Koskinen and D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland

In Case C-101/00 Siilin the Court held that VAT on car tax was
not VAT within the meaning of the Sixth Directive. The right
under the Finnish Arvonlisäverolaki to deduct VAT on car tax
related to commercial activities subject to tax was contrary to
the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC, according to which VAT
may be deducted only from VAT.

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/17

According to the Finnish Autoverolaki, the value of cars under
three months old which are in use is not reduced and they are
taxed as new vehicles. The value of a vehicle begins to go down
from the moment the vehicle is purchased or brought into use.
The taxation of used cars under three months old at the same
level as new cars is contrary to Article 90 of the EC Treaty. The
provisions of the Autoverolaki also infringe Article 90 of the
EC Treaty because they apply a scale to cars between 3 and
6 months of age according to which the value of a car decreases
by 0,8 % per month in circumstances where it has not been
established that there are any similar vehicles on the Finnish
market, because using that scale for a linear reduction in value
of 0,8 % there is no guarantee that the amount of tax charge-
able does not exceed in any circumstances the amount of resi-
dual tax included in the value of similar vehicles already regis-
tered in Finland.

(1) Sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of
the laws of
taxes —
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
(OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).

the Member States relating to turnover

(2) OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

Christophe Novelli, Domenico Castronovo, Rachid Hitti, Alberto
D'Errico, Marco Quaranta, Primo Pecci, Giuseppe Montaperto

Questions referred

1. Should Article 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of 20 July
1998 on the approximation of
the Member
States relating to collective redundancies (1), which provides
that:

the laws of

‘Member States shall ensure that
judicial and/or administrative
procedures for the enforcement of obligations under this Directive
are available to the workers' representatives and/or workers’,

be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such
as Article 67 of the Law of 13 February 1998 on measures
in so far as it provides that a
in favour of employment,
worker can no longer challenge compliance with the proce-
dure for informing and consulting,

— except on the ground that

complied with
Article 66(1)(ii) of that law,

the

the employer has not
in

referred

to

conditions

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail
de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 11 January 2008 — Mono
Car Styling SA,
in liquidation v Dervis Odemis, Marc
Bayard, Pietro Dimola, Danielle Marra, Youssef Belkaid,
Marie-Christine Henri, Philippe Tistaert, Richard Toussaint,
Alexandre Van Rutten, François Cristantielli, Khalid Zari,
Luigi Deiana, Vincent Hellinx,
Isabelle
Christophe Novelli, Domenico Castronovo, Rachid Hitti,
Alberto D'Errico, Marco Quaranta, Primo Pecci, Giuseppe
Montaperto

Longaretti,

(Case C-12/08)

(2008/C 79/30)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Liège

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Mono Car Styling SA, in liquidation

Defendants: Dervis Odemis, Marc Bayard, Pietro Dimola, Danielle
Marra, Youssef Belkaid, Marie-Christine Henri, Philippe Tistaert,
Richard Toussaint, Alexandre Van Rutten, François Cristantielli,
Khalid Zari, Isabelle Longaretti, Luigi Deiana, Vincent Hellinx,

— and to the extent that the staff representatives within the
Works Council or, where no such council exists, the
members of the union delegation or, where no such dele-
gation exists, those workers who should be informed and
consulted, have notified the employer of objections,
in
respect of compliance with one or more of the condi-
tions referred to in Article 66(1)(ii) within 30 days of the
display referred to in the second subparagraph of
Article 66(2),

— and where the worker made redundant has informed the
employer,
in a letter sent by recorded delivery [within
30 days from the date of redundancy] or from the date
on which the redundancies acquired their status as collec-
tive redundancies, that he was challenging compliance
with the procedure for informing and consulting and he
was seeking to be reinstated in his post?

the laws of

2. Assuming that Article 6 of Council Directive 98/59/EC of
the
20 July 1998 on the approximation of
Member States relating to collective redundancies may be
interpreted as allowing Member States to adopt provisions of
national law such as Article 67 of the Law of 13 February
1998 on measures in favour of employment, in so far as it
provides that a worker made redundant can no longer chal-
lenge compliance with the procedure for informing and
consulting except on the ground that the employer has not
fulfilled the conditions referred to in Article 66(1)(ii) of that
law, and to the extent that staff representatives within the
Works Council or, where no such council exists,
the
members of the union delegation or, where no such delega-
the workers who should be informed and
tion exists,
consulted, have notified the employer of objections
in
respect of compliance with one or more of the conditions
referred to in Article 66(1)(ii) within a period of 30 days
from the display referred to in the second subparagraph of
Article 66(2) and where the worker made redundant has