Case C-468/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale del Veneto (Italy) lodged on 17 June 2019 — Regione Veneto v HD
Date: 2019-06-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: cultural object, economic discrimination, equal treatment, heritage protection, independence of the judiciary, motor car, residence, tax exemption








C_2019357EN.01000702.xml










21.10.2019   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 357/7






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione tributaria regionale del Veneto (Italy) lodged on 17 June 2019 — Regione Veneto v HD
(Case C-468/19)
(2019/C 357/11)
Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria regionale del Veneto

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Regione Veneto

Respondent: HD

Questions referred







1.


In order to identify the ‘cultural objects’ covered by Article 36 TFEU, is it necessary to use the criterion laid down in Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/60/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014, (1) pursuant to which the definition of such objects provided by the national legislation is decisive?










2.


Does the protection afforded to ‘cultural objects’ by Article 36 TFEU also include the ‘vintage vehicles’ referred to in Directive 2000/53/EC? (2)











3.


Consequently, does the Community law recalled above, for the purposes of the protection pursued by that law, also take account of vehicles classified by the Italian legal order as ‘of interest to historians and collectors’ because of the duty to preserve them in their original state?










4.


Can the function of protecting ‘cultural objects’, including ‘vintage vehicles’ envisaged by Article 36 TFEU and evoked in Article 2(1) of Directive 2014/60/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 and the tenth recital of Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles, in the light of the content of Point 26 of the Road Safety Programme of the European Commission, approved on 29 September 2005, be interpreted as permitting the Member States to grant a tax exemption which is discriminatory inasmuch as it is limited only to vehicles ‘of particular interest to historians and collectors’, even where there is a more extensive tax exemption which is granted in respect of all vehicles ‘of interest to historians and collectors’ in some areas of the national territory as the result of regional and provincial laws that apply only in those regions and provinces?










5.


If the previous question is answered in the negative, does the EU legislation cited nonetheless permit detrimental and discriminatory tax treatment laid down by the law of a Member State in respect of ‘vehicles of interest to historians and collectors’ precisely because of their age and which increases the tax burden because of their more polluting emissions, thereby reducing the protection, preventing the valorisation, and discouraging the preservation of those vehicles?










6.


Does the principle of free movement of goods enshrined in Article 52(2) TEU and Article 30 TFEU and the corresponding prohibition on measures equivalent to duties, in the light of the criteria developed in that regard by the case-law [of the] Court of Justice, permit a Member State to make vehicles which are recognised as being of ‘interest to historians and collectors’ subject to discriminatory and non-homogeneous tax treatment throughout the national territory, which affects transfers of ownership of the same vehicle from a person resident in [a part of] the State territory which is exempt from the tax to a person resident in [a part of] the State territory in which the tax is required?










7.


Do Articles 18, 19, 20, 21, 45 and 49 TFEU, which protect the fundamental freedoms guaranteed in the common European area, and the prohibition on direct and indirect discrimination laid down in Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 (3) preclude detrimental and discriminatory tax treatment within a Member State which differentiates and penalises owners of vehicles of interest to historians and collectors solely according to their place of residence?










8.


Do the principles of the freedom, autonomy and independence of the courts, enshrined and protected by Article 2 TEU in the common European area in order to guarantee a ‘fair trial’, permit a Member State to prevent courts by law from autonomously recognising a motor vehicle as being of ‘particular interest to historians and collectors’ in order to establish whether or not that vehicle is exempt from taxation, obliging those courts to take account only of the decisions adopted in that respect by a private entity which has exclusive responsibility for doing so?






(1)  Directive 2014/60/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 on the return of cultural objects unlawfully removed from the territory of a Member State and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 (Recast) (OJ 2014 L 159, p. 1).

(2)  Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles — Commission Statements (OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34).

(3)  Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ 2000 L 180, p. 22).