Case C-663/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 27 December 2011 — SC Scandic Distilleries SA v Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili
Date: 2011-12-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Romania, excise duty, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law, tax rebate








C_2012089EN.01000302.xml










24.3.2012   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 89/3





Reference for a preliminary ruling from Curtea de Apel Oradea (Romania) lodged on 27 December 2011 — SC Scandic Distilleries SA v Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili
(Case C-663/11)
2012/C 89/05
Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Oradea

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: SC Scandic Distilleries SA

Respondent: Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Questions referred







1.


Does the refusal of the Romanian tax authorities to grant a request for reimbursement of excise duty constitute an infringement of European Union law (Articles 7 and 22 of Directive 92/12/EEC, (1) and the preamble thereto) in the case where:






(a)


the trader requesting reimbursement of excise duty furnished proof that all the technical conditions laid down in Romanian law governing the admissibility of requests for reimbursement were satisfied, and in particular those relating to: (i) proof of payment of excise duty in Romania; and (ii) proof that the products subject to excise duty were dispatched to another Member State;










(b)


according to the requirements of Romanian tax law (Article 1926 of the Tax Code, Paragraph 184 of the implementing provisions referred to in Government Decision No 44/2004, and Annex 11 to Title VII of the Tax Code), certain documents which had to accompany the request for reimbursement could be furnished only after the products subject to excise duty had been delivered in another Member State;










(c)


Romanian tax law (Article 184(4) of the implementing provisions, which refers to Article 135 of the Code of Tax Procedure) provides for a general period of five years for each request for refund/reimbursement?














2.


Must Article 22([2])(a) of Directive 92/12/EEC be interpreted as meaning that failure by a trader to request reimbursement of excise duty in the Member State in which that excise duty was paid, before the products subject to excise duty were delivered in the other Member State where the products are intended for consumption, entails forfeiture of the trader’s right to obtain reimbursement of the excise duty paid?










3.


If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, does the decision on the forfeiture of the trader’s right to obtain reimbursement of excise duty, which involves double taxation of the same products subject to excise duty (in the Member State in which the products subject to excise duty are initially released for consumption and in the Member State in which the products are intended for consumption), comply with the principle of fiscal neutrality?










4.


If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, can the extremely brief period between the date of payment of the excise duty on the products released for consumption in one Member State and the date of dispatch of the products subject to excise duty to another Member State in which they are intended for consumption be regarded as complying with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness? Is it relevant, in that regard, that the general period during which the refund/reimbursement of a tax, duty or charge can be requested in the Member State in question is significantly longer?






(1)  Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1).