CELEX: 62021CN0676
Language: en
Date: 2021-11-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-676/21: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 November 2021 — A

31.1.2022   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 51/20
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged on 9 November 2021 — A
      (Case C-676/21)
      (2022/C 51/28)
      Language of the case: Finnish
      
         Referring court
      
      Korkein hallinto-oikeus
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Appellant: A
      
         Other party: Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Can the provisions on the free movement of goods in Title II of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union or Article 110 TFEU preclude legislation of a Member State under which, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the motor vehicle tax included in the value of a vehicle within the meaning of the Autoverolaki (1482/1994) (Law on motor vehicle tax [1482/1994]) is not refunded to the owner of the vehicle where he or she exports the vehicle for use on a permanent basis in another Member State, and is it relevant in that connection whether the vehicle was intended to be used on a permanent basis primarily in the territory of the Member State which levied the motor vehicle tax and whether it was actually used on a permanent basis primarily in that territory?
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  If the intention of use of the vehicle and its actual use are relevant to the answer to the first question, how is such intention of use on a non-permanent basis and such actual use on a non-permanent basis to be demonstrated in so far as the duration for which a private vehicle is to be used in the Member State cannot be determined in advance?
               
            
                  3.
               
               
                  If the refusal to grant an export refund within the meaning of the Law on motor vehicle tax constitutes a restriction on the free movement of goods in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, can that restriction be justified by the objective of limiting the export of old vehicles which are often in poor condition and pollute the environment? Is the restriction of the export refund to vehicles less than ten years old to be regarded as being incompatible with EU law on the ground that motor vehicle tax is nevertheless levied on imported used vehicles irrespective of the duration for which they have been used?