CELEX: C2002/274/08
Language: en
Date: 2002-11-09 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2002 in Case C-101/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the korkein hallinto-oikeus): Tulliasiamies, v Antti Siilin (Taxation of imported used cars — First paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, first paragraph of Article 90 EC) — Sixth VAT Directive)

C 274/6                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           9.11.2002
4.    Orders Falck SpA and Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA to share the                mission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
      costs in Cases C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P;                                    down provisions for the implementation of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                                 No 2913/92, but precludes the taxable value from varying
5.    Orders the Italian Republic to bear its own costs in Cases                 according to the marketing stage where this may result, at least
      C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P.                                                   in certain cases, in the amount of the tax on an imported used
                                                                                 car exceeding the amount of the residual tax incorporated in the
                                                                                 value of a similar used car already registered in the national
( 1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                                 territory.
                                                                            2.   The first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty precludes a
                                                                                 Member State from applying to used cars imported from
                                                                                 another Member State a system of taxation under which the
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          tax on those vehicles
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                 —      is equal, during the first six months from the registration
                                                                                        or bringing into use of the vehicle, to the tax charged on
                      of 19 September 2002
                                                                                        a similar new vehicle, and
in Case C-101/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the korkein hallinto-oikeus): Tulliasiamies, v Antti                        —      is equal, from the 7th to the 150th month of use of the
                                Siilin ( 1)                                             vehicle, to the tax on a similar new vehicle, with a linear
                                                                                        reduction by a percentage of 0,5 % per full calendar
(Taxation of imported used cars — First paragraph of Article                            month,
95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, first paragraph
           of Article 90 EC) — Sixth VAT Directive)
                                                                                 since such a system of taxation does not take the actual
                           (2002/C 274/08)                                       depreciation of the vehicle into account and does not provide a
                                                                                 guarantee that the amount of tax it determines will in no case
                    (Language of the case: Finnish)                              exceed the residual tax incorporated in the value of a similar
                                                                                 used car already registered in the national territory.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            3.   Where a Member State applies to used cars imported from
                                                                                 other Member States a system of taxation under which the
                                                                                 actual depreciation of the vehicles is defined in a general and
In Case C-101/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234                       abstract way on the basis of criteria laid down by national law,
EC by the korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) for a preliminary                    the first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty requires that
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court brought                      system of taxation to be arranged in such a way, making
by Tulliasiamies, and Antti Siilin, on the interpretation of the                 allowance for the reasonable approximations inherent in any
first paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after                       system of that type, as to exclude any discriminatory effect. That
amendment, the first paragraph of Article 90 EC) and of the                      requirement presupposes, first, that the criteria on which the
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                         flat-rate method of calculating the depreciation of vehicles is
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                       based are made public and, second, that the owner of a used
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                       vehicle imported from another Member State is able to challenge
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), in the version of                     the application of a flat-rate method of calculation to that
Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992                                 vehicle, which may mean that its particular characteristics have
amending Directive 77/388/EEC and introducing simplifi-                          to be examined in order to ensure that the tax applied to it does
cation measures with regard to value added tax (OJ 1992                          not exceed the residual tax incorporated in the value of a similar
L 384, p. 47), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,                  used vehicle already registered in the national territory.
President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr, A. La Pergola,
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Adminis-             4.   A tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings, described
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 September                  in national law as ‘value added tax’ on car tax, does not
2002, in which it has ruled:                                                     constitute ‘value added tax’ within the meaning of the Sixth
                                                                                 Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
1.    The first paragraph of Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after             harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
      amendment, the first paragraph of Article 90 EC) allows a                  turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
      Member State to apply to used vehicles imported from another               basis of assessment, in the version of Council Directive 92/
      Member State a system of taxation under which the taxable                  111/EEC of 14 December 1992 amending Directive 77/388/
      value is determined by reference to the customs value as defined           EEC and introducing simplification measures with regard to
      by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October                       value added tax, and is compatible with Article 33 of that
      1992 establishing the Community Customs Code and Com-                      directive.
 ---pagebreak--- 9.11.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 274/7
5.    The first paragraph of Article 95 of the Treaty precludes the                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
      levying of a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings,
      which is payable on car tax, in so far as the amount charged as
      such a tax on a used car imported from another Member State
                                                                                                       (Fifth Chamber)
      exceeds the amount of the residual tax incorporated in the value
      of a similar used car already registered in the national territory.
                                                                                                   of 19 September 2002
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                             in Case C-113/00: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
                                                                                                European Communities ( 1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      (State aid — Agriculture — Aid for horticultural products
                                                                             intended for industrial processing in Extremadura —
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                   Article 87(1) and (3)(a) and (c) EC — Small amount of aid
                                                                             — No comments from parties concerned — Operating aid
                                                                             — Aid relating to products subject to a common organisation
                      of 19 September 2002                                   of the market — Restrictions on the free movement of goods
                                                                                                  — Statement of reasons)
in Case C-104/00 P: DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung
AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
             (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)                                                      (2002/C 274/10)
(Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 — Word ‘Companyline’ — Absolute ground for
                 refusal — Distinctive character)                                               (Language of the case: Spanish)
                           (2002/C 274/09)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                   (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-113/00, Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamon-
                                                                             de) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent:
In Case C-104/00 P, DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG                      D. Triantafyllou): Application for annulment of Commission
(represented by: S. von Petersdorff-Campen): Appeal against                  Decision 2000/237/EC of 22 December 1999 concerning an
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                  aid scheme implemented by Spain in favour of horticultural
Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 12 January 2000 in Case                      products intended for industrial processing in Extremadura in
T-19/99 DKV v OHIM (COMPANYLINE) [2000] ECR II-1,                            the 1997/98 marketing year (OJ 2000 L 75, p. 54), the Court
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the              (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the
proceedings being: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                  Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von                      C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advo-
Mühlendahl and D. Schennen), the Court (Fifth Chamber),                      cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                 19 September 2002, in which it:
S. von Bahr, M. Wathelet, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 19 September 2002, in which it:                                           1.    Dismisses the application;
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                  2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.
2.    Orders DKV Deutsche Krankenversicherung AG to pay the
      costs.
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
( 1) OJ C 192 of 8.7.2000.