CELEX: 62002CC0365
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-04
Title: Opinion of Advocate General Stix-Hackl delivered on 4 March 2004. # Marie Lindfors. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Korkein hallinto-oikeus - Finland. # Directive 83/183/EEC - Transfer of residence from one Member State to another - Tax levied before registration or bringing into use of a vehicle. # Case C-365/02.

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERALSTIX-HACKL delivered on 4 March 2004(1)
         Case C-365/02 Marie Lindfors(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland))
            (Interpretation of Article 1(1) and (2) of Council Directive 83/183/EEC on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from
               a Member State of the personal property of individuals  –  Car tax (‘Autovero’)  –  Consumption tax or specific tax for the use of a motor vehicle  –  Registration tax  –  Double taxation)
            
            
      
         
      I –  Introduction
        1.        In this reference for a preliminary ruling the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court) (Finland) seeks an interpretation
      of Article 1 of Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member
      State of the personal property of individuals (hereinafter: ‘the Directive’). 
         			(2)
         		 In particular it concerns the question whether the car tax payable under the Autoverolaki (Law on car tax) (1482/1994) before
      a vehicle is registered or brought into use is a duty or a tax from which a vehicle imported into Finland in connection with
      a transfer of residence should be exempted under the above provision.
      
      
      II –  Legal framework
       A – National law
        2.        Under Paragraph 1(1) of the Autoverolaki (1482/1994) of 29 December 1994 in the version in force in 1999 (hereinafter: ‘AVL’),
      car tax (hereinafter: ‘Autovero’) is payable before a vehicle is registered or brought into use in Finland.
      
      
        3.        Bringing into use means use of the vehicle in traffic on Finnish territory, even if the vehicle is not registered (Paragraph
      2 of the AVL).
      
      
        4.        Under the main provision concerning liability to tax, Paragraph 4(1) of the AVL, the Autovero is payable by the importer of
      a vehicle or the manufacturer of a vehicle manufactured in Finland.
      
      
        5.        Additionally, under Paragraph 5 of the AVL, taxpayers are also liable to pay a value added tax on the Autovero of an amount
      laid down in the Arvonlisäverolaki (Value added tax law) (1501/93) (hereinafter: ‘Arvonlisäverolaki’).
      
      
        6.        The amount of the Autovero is, under Paragraph 6(1) of the AVL, the amount of the taxable value of the vehicle less FIM 4
      600 (now EUR 770), but in all cases at least 50% of the taxable value of the vehicle.
      
      
        7.        Under Paragraph 7(1) of the AVL, the tax levied in respect of an imported used vehicle is that on a new vehicle, but reduced
      on a percentage basis according to the number of months for which the vehicle has been in use. Under Paragraph 11(1) and (2)
      of the Law, the basis of the taxable value of the imported vehicle is its acquisition value to the taxpayer, which is set
      according to the customs value of the vehicle.
      
      
        8.        Under Paragraph 25(1) of the AVL, the tax levied on a vehicle imported by an individual in connection with a transfer of his
      residence to Finland and privately owned may be reduced in accordance with the conditions laid down therein by a maximum of
      FIM 80 000 (now EUR 13 450).
      
      
       B – Community law
        9.        According to the recitals of the Directive, its objective is to eliminate tax obstacles to the free movement of persons within
      the Community. The scope of the Directive is defined in Article 1 as follows:
      ‘(1) Every Member State shall, subject to the conditions and in the cases hereinafter set out, exempt personal property imported
      permanently from another Member State by private individuals from turnover tax, excise duty and other consumption taxes which
      normally apply to such property.
      (2) Specific and/or periodical duties and taxes connected with the use of such property within the country, such as for instance
      motor vehicle registration fees, road taxes and television licences, are not covered by this directive.’
      
      
      III –  Facts, main proceedings and question referred for a preliminary ruling
        10.      Ms Lindfors, who had resided abroad for several years, imported as a private individual a car belonging to her of the Audi
      A6 Avant make on 4 August 1999 in the course of her transfer of residence from another Member State of the European Communities
      to Finland. She had bought the car, which had left the factory on 20 March 1995, in Germany and brought it into use on 5 April
      1995 in the Netherlands.
      
      
        11.      The Hangon tullikamari (Hanko Customs Board) by tax decision of 4 August 1999 granted Ms Lindfors a tax reduction of FIM 80
      000 in accordance with Paragraph 25(1) of the AVL and assessed the Autovero payable by her at FIM 16 556 plus FIM 3 642 value
      added tax, making a total of FIM 20 198.
      
      
        12.      Ms Lindfors applied to the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Helsinki Administrative Court) for the tax decision to be set aside
      and the taxes paid by her to be refunded. She submitted that the Autovero constitutes a consumption tax within the meaning
      of Article 1(1) of the Directive which may not be levied on her car imported in connection with a transfer of residence.
      
      
        13.      The Helsinki Administrative Court dismissed the application. It took the view that the Autovero is a tax connected with the
      registration or use of the vehicle in traffic on Finnish territory and that therefore it is to be regarded as a specific tax
      connected with the use of property within the country within the meaning of Article 1(2) of the Directive, which is not covered
      by the Directive.
      
      
        14.      Thereupon Ms Lindfors sought leave to appeal to the Korkein hallinto-oikeus and asked in her appeal for the decision of the
      Helsinki Administrative Court and the tax decision of the Customs Board to be set aside.
      
      
        15.      In order to resolve the question whether in the light of the Directive a car tax such as the Autovero may be levied on a vehicle
      imported in connection with the transfer of residence, the Supreme Administrative Court decided by order of 10 October 2002
      to make a reference to the Court for a preliminary ruling on the following question: 
       Is Article 1 of Council Directive 83/183/EEC on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member State of the
      personal property of individuals to be interpreted as meaning that car tax charged under the Autoverolaki on a vehicle imported
      into Finland from another Member State in connection with a transfer of residence is a consumption tax within the meaning
      of Article 1(1) of the directive, or is it a specific duty or tax connected with the use of such property within the country
      within the meaning of Article 1(2)?
      
      
      IV –  The question referred for a preliminary ruling
       A – Introductory remarks
        16.      With the exception of value added tax – for which incidentally several derogations apply in connection with the purchase of
      new vehicles 
         			(3)
         		 – the taxation of motor vehicles in the Community has not been harmonised to any extent. 
         			(4)
         		
      
        17.      Correspondingly the taxes and duties payable on private cars in the Member States vary considerably not only in their amount
      but also in their structure. 
         			(5)
         		 Certain taxes in one Member State have no counterpart whatsoever in other Member States. One must therefore bear in mind,
      in particular in a case such as the present one in which the referring court seeks to ascertain whether a particular national
      tax falls within a tax definition set out in a Community instrument, that there is a lack of common concepts which would permit
      an exact classification of different taxes.
      
      
        18.      For the purposes of exposition – and because the parties concerned with this case have evidently also assumed such a classification
      – I should like however to make a rough distinction between three different types of tax and duty which are levied by Member
      States in respect of private cars.
      
      
        19.      Firstly, there are one-off taxes, I will call them ‘registration taxes’, which are payable on the purchase of a car or as
      a condition for bringing it into use on the territory of a Member State.
      
      
        20.      Secondly, almost all Member States also levy taxes – calculated according to differing criteria – payable periodically or,
      as the case may be, annually, known, for example, in Germany and Austria as ‘Kraftfahrzeugsteuern’ (car taxes).
      
      
        21.      Finally, duties may be levied in connection with the registration of a vehicle in a Member State to cover the administration
      costs (registration fees).
      
      
        22.      It emerges from the case-file and the observations of the Finnish Government that in each of those cases Finland also levies
      such taxes on cars. 
      
      
        23.      The Autovero, as is already clear from the AVL, is a one-off tax payable on cars and other categories of vehicle before their
      registration or bringing them into use, calculated on the basis of their taxable value; additionally under the Finnish Arvonlisäverolaki
      so-called value added tax is also levied on the amount of the Autovero. 
      
      
        24.      Additionally, there are also taxes payable periodically, that is, car taxes in the narrower sense, the Ajoneuvovero (vehicle
      tax, or ‘vignette’) and Moottoriajoneuvovero (diesel tax).
      
      
        25.      Finally, duties are also payable in Finland on the registration of a vehicle to cover the administrative costs associated
      with the registration (registration fee).
      
      
        26.      The present case only concerns the Autovero which the Court already had to consider in the case of Siilin and in which I also delivered my Opinion. 
         			(6)
         		
      
        27.      That case raised the question whether a tax such as the Autovero in the form and the amount as was in force at the time in
      respect of a used vehicle imported from another Member State constitutes an unlawful discriminatory domestic tax, to which
      the Court replied in the affirmative. The present case however concerns the question whether in specific circumstances, that
      is, when a private car is permanently imported within the scope of a transfer of residence, a tax such as the Finnish Autovero
      – irrespective of its amount or the method of its calculation – may be levied at all.
      
      
        28.      The referring court essentially wishes to know whether the tax exemption provided for by Article 1 of the Directive precludes
      such taxation. 
      
      
        29.      I should finally like to point out that the Commission has already raised that question in connection with the Standard Fuel
      Consumption Tax (‘Normverbrauchsabgabe’ or ‘NOVA’) levied in Austria in the context of the reference for a preliminary ruling
      in Case C-387/01, also currently pending before the Court, which however primarily concerns the compatibility of the NOVA
      with Articles 23 EC, 25 EC and 39 EC and with the Sixth Value Added Tax Directive, and that Advocate General Tizzano has in
      his Opinion in that case also delivered his view on the matter. 
         			(7)
         		
      
       B – Main arguments of the parties
        30.      According to Ms Lindfors and the Commission, the Directive in setting out a principle of tax exemption precludes the levying of tax in a situation such as that arising
      in the main proceedings. In their opinion the Autovero constitutes a consumption tax levied on or by reason of permanent importation,
      to which Article 1(1) applies.
      
      
        31.      Ms Lindfors argues inter alia that in reality, or rather judging by the formalities of the tax declaration, the Autovero is
      levied by reason of the fact of importing the vehicle to Finland. That it constitutes a consumption tax within the meaning
      of Article 1(1) of the Directive follows also indirectly from the scope of Council Directive 83/182/EEC of 28 March 1983 on
      tax exemptions within the Community for certain means of transport temporarily imported into one Member State from another 
         			(8)
         		 and from the proposal for a Council Directive governing the tax treatment of private motor vehicles moved permanently to
      another Member State in connection with a transfer of residence or used temporarily in a Member State other than that in which
      they are registered (hereinafter: ‘Commission proposal’). 
         			(9)
         		
      
        32.      The Commission contends that Article 1(1) of the Directive precludes the levying of taxes whose chargeable event is the importation.
      This prohibition cannot be circumvented by utilising instead of the importation an alternative chargeable event, such as registration.
      The Commission also points out that the Directive must be interpreted in the light of the provisions on free movement of persons
      and to avoid double taxation.
      
      
        33.      The Finnish, Danish and Greek Governments, which have submitted observations in the present case, on the other hand take the view that a tax such as the Autovero is
      not covered by the tax exemption provided for in Article 1(1) of the Directive, referring in this respect also to the opinion
      of Advocate General Tizzano in the case of Weigel. 
         			(10)
         		 They emphasise, essentially in agreement with one another, that the Autovero does not constitute a tax which is levied on
      importation but rather one which is linked to utilisation. If the vehicle is not brought into use in Finland – such as in
      the case of a car which is to be exhibited in a museum, as the Finnish Government explains by way of example – the Autovero
      is not payable. Accordingly it is to be seen as a tax on the use of the vehicle or as ‘motor vehicle registration fees’ within
      the meaning of Article 1(2) of the Directive and therefore is not included within the tax exemption.
      
      
        34.      In so far as the governments make reference to the Commission proposal or to Directive 83/182, they draw the opposite conclusion
      from those texts to Ms Lindfors or the Commission as to the interpretation of the scope of the Directive. The governments
      also point out that registration taxes such as the Autovero have not yet been harmonised within the Community and that therefore
      the possibility of double taxation must also be accepted as a consequence of that situation. The Danish Government explains
      that the derogation concerning vehicle registration taxes in Article 1(2) of the Directive was inserted into the Directive’s
      text by the Council on the initiative of Denmark for the very purpose of expressly excluding registration taxes such as the
      Autovero from the scope of the Directive.
      
      
        35.      The Commission agreeing with Ms Lindfors, however, interprets the derogation contained in Article 1(2) as only referring to the administrative costs or fees which
      are incurred on registration and bases that interpretation above all on the French and English language versions of the Directive
      which refer to the ‘droits’ and ‘fees’ for the registration of vehicles.
      
      
        36.      The governments submitting observations reject that interpretation for linguistic and logical reasons. In particular, Community law does not in any case preclude
      the levying of fees to cover administrative costs.
      
      
       C – Appraisal
        37.      Under Article 1(1) of the Directive, the scope of the Directive extends to consumption taxes – ‘turnover tax, excise duty
      and other consumption taxes’ – which ‘normally’ apply to ‘personal property imported permanently from another Member State
      by private individuals’. Those consumption taxes are contrasted in Article 1(2) with ‘[s]pecific and/or periodical duties
      and taxes connected with the use of such property’ which are not in any event to be covered by the Directive. ‘[M]otor vehicle
      registration fees, road taxes and television licences’ are expressly cited as examples of such taxes.
      
      
        38.      Evidently, then, to delimit the Directive’s scope, it distinguishes between those (consumption) taxes and duties which are
      connected with the importation of property and those which apply to its use within the country.
      
      
        39.      On an initial view that distinction also appears to be obvious, since it would not be very clear why a Community citizen who
      permanently transfers his place of residence to another Member State and as a consequence lives and uses property there should
      be exempted from taxes which relate to such use of the property in that Member State.
      
      
        40.      By contrast, taxes and duties which are linked to the importation of property do very probably constitute an immediate tax
      obstacle to the free movement of persons.
      
      
        41.      As regards the question concerning which taxes or duties relating to importation might be envisaged under Article 1(1) of
      the Directive, customs duties or charges of an equivalent effect within the meaning of Articles 23 EC and 25 EC, for example,
      are not to be considered (although according to the Court’s case-law it is of course a very characteristic of those charges
      that they are levied by reason of importation or the crossing of the frontier of a Member State). 
         			(11)
         		 Since such financial burdens are in any case precluded by primary law and also cannot under Article 99 EC be subject to harmonisation
      measures, it is clear that the Directive does not concern them.
      
      
        42.      Rather, Article 1(1) of the Directive is directed towards internal taxation – to use the terminology of Article 90 EC – or
      indirect taxes or, more accurately, consumption taxes which use importation as the chargeable event.
      
      
        43.      Whilst at present examples of such taxes may not immediately spring to mind, it must however not be forgotten that the Directive
      goes back to a time before the introduction of the internal market on 1 January 1993 and the progress thereby achieved in
      removing tax obstacles to intra-Community trade. At that time Member States could in particular still levy turnover taxes
      on imports or other (special) consumption taxes which for taxation purposes were linked to the fact of importation of goods. 
         			(12)
         		
      
        44.      As regards value added taxes, the principle of imposing tax on imports within intra-Community trade was abolished by Directive
      91/680/EEC 
         			(13)
         		 as a condition of eliminating fiscal frontiers and was replaced by the concept of imposing tax on acquisitions according
      to the Member State of destination. Since then turnover taxes on imports are only permitted in the context of trade with third
      countries.
      
      
        45.      Under Article 33 of the Sixth Value Added Tax Directive Member States are indeed left free to maintain or introduce at their
      discretion consumption taxes or other indirect taxes, provided that they cannot be characterised as turnover taxes within
      the meaning of the Sixth Directive or compromise the functioning of the common value added tax system. 
         			(14)
         		 However, in respect of consumption taxes ‑ for example, also for special consumption taxes on motor vehicles – it must be
      noted that under Article 3(3) of the ‘System Directive’ 92/12/EEC 
         			(15)
         		 those taxes may ‘not give rise to border-crossing formalities’ in intra-Community trade. Thus whilst the possibility for
      Member States to introduce or maintain special consumption taxes whose chargeable event is linked to importation or the crossing
      of a border is de facto considerably restricted, it is however not completely excluded. 
         			(16)
         		
      
        46.      I do not wish to elaborate further on these observations, but they may serve as an introduction to my examination of the compatibility
      of a tax with the characteristics of the Autovero with the tax exemption provided for by the Directive. 
      
      
        47.      Under the AVL, the chargeable event of the Autovero is linked to the registration of the vehicle or bringing it into use in
      Finland.
      
      
        48.      Even the Commission and Ms Lindfors assume, however, that the tax exemption provided for under Article 1(1) of the Directive
      relates to taxes whose chargeable event is connected to importation. They argue nevertheless that, despite the AVL providing
      for the linking of the Autovero to registration or bringing into use, in reality it must be seen as a tax which is levied
      on importation.
      
      
        49.      At the hearing the Finnish Government demonstrated, in my opinion convincingly, that in practice neither the tax declaration
      relating to the Autovero nor the payment thereof needs to take place on crossing the border or on importation and that the
      customs formalities described by Ms Lindfors relate to importation from a third country. It cannot therefore be concluded
      from the practical border-crossing arrangements that a tax such as the Autovero in reality constitutes a tax which is levied
      on or because of importation.
      
      
        50.      I consider to be more significant the Commission’s submission that a tax such as the Autovero which in formal terms is linked
      to registration or bringing into use is also to be regarded as a consumption tax or turnover tax levied on importation within
      the meaning of Article 1(1) of the Directive and that that provision may not be circumvented by providing for an alternative
      chargeable event to that of importation.
      
      
        51.      In that respect it must be firstly noted that – as the Finnish Government illustrated with its example of a vehicle to be
      exhibited in a museum – a tax such as the Autovero does not operate as a ‘true’ consumption tax levied on importation, because
      despite the transfer to Finland liability does not arise or does not arise until the car is brought into circulation or registered
      there.
      
      
        52.      It could of course be argued that in reality the link with registration or the bringing into use constitutes a substitute
      link which is in practical terms comparable with the fact of importation, since in respect of the vast majority of vehicles
      brought into a Member State it can be assumed that the vehicle is also to be used. 
      
      
        53.      The Court, in a different connection to that of the present case, had in its judgment in Case 391/85 similarly to deal with
      the Commission’s submission that the registration tax for new cars applicable at that time in Belgium in reality constituted
      a value added tax. The Belgian Government contended inter alia that the two taxes should be distinguished from one another
      because they were linked to different events (delivery/registration). 
         			(17)
         		
      
        54.      The Court observed in that regard that ‘that argument could be accepted only if the two taxes were genuinely independent of
      each other.’ In that case it came to the conclusion that the registration tax was not independent, but that was against the
      background in that case that thanks to an offsetting mechanism a direct link existed between the registration tax and the
      value added tax, eliminating the difference between the chargeable events upon which the two taxes became chargeable. 
         			(18)
         		
      
        55.      In the present case the Autovero however does not have a comparable link to a value added tax which might be payable on importation.
      In those circumstances the difference in terms of their respective chargeable events between a tax such as the Autovero and
      a consumption tax levied by reason of importation appears sufficiently material for it not to be possible to equate the former
      with the latter for the purposes of Article 1(1) of the Directive.
      
      
        56.      I am therefore assuming that a tax such as the Autovero does not constitute a turnover tax, excise duty or other consumption
      tax levied on importation within the meaning of Article 1(1) of the Directive. The preceding observations have however also
      made it clear that those tax concepts cannot be strictly delineated and that the mere fact that a tax is levied as a result
      of or as a condition of registration does not in itself preclude also regarding it as a type of import-consumption tax.
      
      
        57.      In that connection Article 1(2) of the Directive must now be examined. It emerges from the drafts of the Directive put forward
      at that time that that provision was not originally contained in the Commission’s proposal and was incorporated into the Directive
      precisely to satisfy the wishes of several Member States seeking precision as to the Directive’s scope. 
         			(19)
         		 That provision also expressly mentions ‘motor vehicle registration fees’ which in the view of the governments submitting
      observations refers to taxes such as the Autovero. 
      
      
        58.      For several reasons I am not convinced by the Commission’s submission that that only intends to refer to fees which may be
      payable on registration to cover administrative costs. 
      
      
        59.      Firstly, above all the Danish Government correctly pointed out, in particular at the hearing, that that argument cannot be
      supported convincingly by a purely literal interpretation of Article 1(2) of the Directive. Given the widely differing approaches
      and traditions of the Member States in the field of taxation, caution is from the outset called for in this matter. Whilst,
      for example, in the French text one can find grounds for the Commission’s view in the distinction between ‘taxes’ and ‘droits’,
      little support for such a view can however be found, for example, in the German text with the expressions ‘Steuern’ and ‘Abgaben’,
      since both expressions can be used together synonymously. 
      
      
        60.      Secondly, ‘motor vehicle registration fees’ are cited in Article 1(2) of the Directive as an example of duties connected with
      the use of imported property. In the case of a duty covering administrative costs or as payment for administrative services that, by definition, would however not be so. 
      
      
        61.      Moreover, it must be observed that the fact that a tax such as the Autovero is not payable periodically and that it is payable
      (in the amount too) irrespective of the extent to which or for how long the vehicle is actually used following registration
      does not preclude classifying that tax as a duty connected with the use of property within the meaning of the Directive. That
      surely follows from Article 1(2) of the Directive, under which not only periodical duties can be duties within the meaning
      of that provision (‘[s]pecific and/or periodical duties’).
      
      
        62.      From the case-file and the observations of the Finnish Government it appears that a lawful bringing into use or operation
      of a vehicle in Finland is as a rule only permitted following the completion of registration. 
         			(20)
         		 Payment of the Autovero therefore constitutes in any event a condition for the (lawful) use of a car in Finland.
      
      
        63.      Such a tax may correctly be regarded as a duty connected with the use of property, which according to Article 1(2) of the
      Directive is expressly excluded from its scope.
      
      
        64.      Furthermore, contrary to the argument of Ms Lindfors, it cannot automatically be concluded from the inclusion of registration
      taxes in the tax exemption under Directive 83/182 which concerns the mere temporary importation of vehicles that such taxes
      ought also to be included in the tax exemption under Directive 83/183 which concerns the permanent importation of the vehicle.
      
      
        65.      The parties additionally referred to the Commission proposal for a successor provision to those directives, in which the prohibition
      on imposing taxes now expressly extends to registration taxes and the Autovero. 
         			(21)
         		 Judging from its recitals, the objective of the proposal is to remove existing problems concerning the taxation of vehicles
      following a transfer of residence, so that the proposal evidently assumes rather that the tax exemption under the present
      directive does not (yet) concern registration taxes. 
         			(22)
         		 But of course that does not really offer a reliable indication for interpreting the meaning of the present directive.
      
      
        66.      Finally, the Commission’s argument that the Directive should be interpreted in the light of the objectives pursued by tax
      harmonisation and the fundamental freedoms must be considered.
      
      
        67.      It is doubtless the case that just as for Directive 83/182 also for that directive ‘the provisions of the Directive must be
      interpreted in the light of the fundamental aims of the endeavour to harmonise VAT, in particular the promotion of freedom
      of movement for persons and goods and the prevention of double taxation.’ 
         			(23)
         		
      
        68.      In my view, however, no conclusions can be drawn therefrom on the basis of the Directive concerning motor vehicle taxes connected
      with registration such as the Autovero, which are, as set out above, excluded from the scope of the Directive.
      
      
        69.      Furthermore, the prohibition on double taxation raised by the Commission – which, as is apparent from the case-law cited, 
         			(24)
         		 constitutes an objective of harmonisation in the field of value added tax – does not apply automatically to all types of
      tax.
      
      
        70.      Rather, in the field of vehicle taxation, as the Court concluded in the case of Cura Anlagen, Member States are free to exercise their powers of taxation in that area and registration appears to be ‘the natural corollary
      of the exercise of those powers of taxation.’ ‘It is lawful for [the Member States] to allocate those powers of taxation amongst
      themselves ... , and to conclude agreements amongst themselves to ensure that a vehicle is subject to indirect taxation in
      only one of the signatory States.’ 
         			(25)
         		
      
        71.      It therefore follows that as Community law stands with regard to motor vehicle registration taxes – such as the Autovero –
      consequences of the lack of harmonisation in this area such as double taxation have to be accepted; at best that could be
      prevented by voluntary measures of the Member States.
      
      
        72.      In the light of the foregoing the answer to the question is that Article 1 of the Directive does not preclude the levying
      of a tax such as the Autovero which is levied on vehicles brought from one Member State into another Member State in connection
      with the transfer of a residence.
      
       
      V –  Conclusion
        73.      I therefore propose that the Court answer the question as follows:
       Article 1 of Council Directive 83/183/EEC of 28 March 1983 on tax exemptions applicable to permanent imports from a Member
      State of the personal property of individuals is to be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the levying of a tax
      such as car tax imposed under the Autoverolaki which is levied on vehicles imported from one Member State into another Member
      State in connection with a transfer of residence. 
      
      
       1 –
         
         Original language: German.
      
      2 –
         
         OJ 1983 L 105, p. 64.
            
         
      
      3 –
         
         Even in the case of an acquisition by a private individual new vehicles are, by way of derogation from the general rule, taxed
            according to the country of destination: see Article 28a of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
            of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment,
            OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1 (hereinafter: ‘Sixth Value Added Tax Directive’).
            
         
      
      4 –
         
         See Case C-451/99 CuraAnlagen [2002] ECR I-3193, paragraph 40.
            
         
      
      5 –
         
         A useful overview of that issue can be found in the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament
            of 6 September 2002 on the taxation of passengers cars in the European Union – options for action at national and Community
            levels, COM (2002) 431 final, and a Study on Vehicle Taxation in the Member States of the European Union of January 2002 produced
            for the Commission by TIS/PT (Consultores em Transportes Inovação e Sistemas, S.A.) available online at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/taxation/car_taxes/vehicle_tax_study_15‑02‑2002.pdf.
            
         
      
      6 –
         
         Case C-101/00 Siilin [2002] ECR I-7487.
            
         
      
      7 –
         
         Case C-387/01 Weigel, Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano delivered on 3 July 2003 [2004] ECR I‑0000, points 40 to 56.
            
         
      
      8 –
         
         OJ 1983 L 105, p. 59.
            
         
      
      9 –
         
         COM (1998) 30 final, OJ 1998 C 108, p. 75, as amended by COM (1999) 165 final, OJ 1999 C 145, p. 6.
            
         
      
      10 –
         
         Opinion cited in footnote 7, above.
            
         
      
      11 –
         
         See inter alia Case C-383/01 DeDanskeBilimportører [2003] ECR I-6065, paragraph 34.
            
         
      
      12 –
         
         For an example see, for instance, the Belgian value added tax on imports also levied on motor vehicles which was the subject-matter
            of Case 249/84 Profant [1985] ECR 3237.
            
         
      
      13 –
         
         Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive
            77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers, OJ 1991 L 376, p. 1.
            
         
      
      14 –
         
         See inter alia Joined Cases 93/88 and 94/88 Wisselink [1989] ECR 2671, paragraph 17, and Case 73/85 Kerrutt [1986] ECR 2219, paragraph 22.
            
         
      
      15 –
         
         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.
            
         
      
      16 –
         
         See also Jatzke, ‘Das neue Verbrauchsteuerrecht im EG-Binnenmarkt’, Steuerrecht No 1, 1993, p. 41 at p. 42. For an example of a special consumption tax levied on vehicles, inter alia on their importation,
            see Case C-375/95 Commission v Greece [1997] ECR I-5981.
            
         
      
      17 –
         
         Case 391/85 Commission v Belgium [1988] ECR 579, paragraphs 14 and 22.
            
         
      
      18 –
         
         Ibid., paragraph 25.
            
         
      
      19 –
         
         Internal document No 6205/79 of the Council Working Group on Finance of 23 April 1979, p. 3, included, with the Council’s
            permission, by the Danish Government in its written observations.
            
         
      
      20 –
         
         Viewed in that way, the bringing of the vehicle into use on Finnish territory could constitute an alternative chargeable event
            ensuring in any event that the tax (already) becomes payable under the Autoverolaki even if the vehicle is, for example, used
            in traffic, contrary to the rules, without registration.
            
         
      
      21 –
         
         See Article 1 together with Annex I of the Commission proposal.
            
         
      
      22 –
         
         In a similar vein see also Advocate General Tizzano in his Opinion in Case C-387/01, cited in footnote 7, above, points 51
            and 52.
            
         
      
      23 –
         
         Case C-389/95 Klattner [1997] ECR I-2719, paragraph 25; see inter alia also Case 249/84, cited in footnote 12, above, paragraph 25, Case 127/86
            Ledoux [1988] ECR 3741, paragraph 11, and Case C-297/89 Ryborg [1991] ECR I-1943, paragraph 13.
            
         
      
      24 –
         
         Ibid.
            
         
      
      25 –
         
         See Case C-451/99, cited in footnote 4, above, paragraphs 40 and 41.