Case C-136/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curte de Apel Târgu-Mureș (Romania) lodged on 15 March 2010 — Daniel Ionel Obreja v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a județului Mureș, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
Date: 2010-03-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, air quality, customs regulations, double taxation, environmental tax, interpretation of the law, pollution control measures, vehicle registration








C_2010161EN.01001802.xml










19.6.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 161/18






Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curte de Apel Târgu-Mureș (Romania) lodged on 15 March 2010 — Daniel Ionel Obreja v Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a județului Mureș, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu
(Case C-136/10)
(2010/C 161/26)
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curte de Apel Târgu-Mureș

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Daniel Ionel Obreja

Defendant: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice a județului Mureș, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Questions referred







1.


Is the introduction of a pollution tax for the period from 1 July 2008 to 15 December 2008 under the Romanian legislation in question (Emergency Order No 50/2008) consistent with the principles of customs union and the prohibition on double taxation established in Articles 23 TEC, 25 TEC and 90 TEC, in so far as those Treaty provisions permit the introduction of a pollution tax for the purpose set out by the Romanian legislature in the preamble to Emergency Order No 50/2008, a purpose which is also provided for in Article 174 TEC et seq, namely to ensure the protection of the environment through the implementation of programmes and projects intended to improve air quality and to attain the limit values laid down by the relevant Community legislation? In other words, more specifically: where a pollution tax is introduced in a Member State of the European Union which is levied on the first registration in that State of new or second-hand motor vehicles imported from another Member State, can the provisions in Article 174 TEC et seq be regarded as justifying the disapplication of Articles 23 TEC, 25 TEC and 90 TEC?










2.


Where such a vehicle has been subject in a Member State to a similar tax, that is a pollution tax (having the same conceptual content and the same scope, namely relating to respect for the environment in accordance with the principles and objectives laid down in Articles 174 TEC et seq), upon first registration in another Member State, is it possible to introduce such a pollution tax with the same objectives as those laid down in Articles 174 TEC et seq, even if the vehicle has already previously been subject to a pollution tax in another Member State?










3.


Finally, where, in the contrary case, such a vehicle has not been subject to a pollution tax in another Member State (either because such a tax does not exist or for other reasons) but, upon subsequent registration in a different Member State, such as Romania, where a tax of that kind is levied, the pollution tax is levied upon first registration of the vehicle in that State, can the principles of customs union and [the rules prohibiting] indirect domestic protection measures laid down in Articles 23 TEC, 25 TEC and 90 TEC be regarded as having been infringed?