CELEX: 62012CA0426
Language: en
Date: 2014-10-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-426/12: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — X v Voorzitter van het managementteam van het onderdeel Belastingdienst/Z van de rijksbelastingdienst (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2003/96/EC — Taxation of energy products and electricity — Article 2(4)(b) — Dual use of energy products — Concept)

24.11.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 421/3
            
         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 2 October 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch — Netherlands) — X v Voorzitter van het managementteam van het onderdeel Belastingdienst/Z van de rijksbelastingdienst
   (Case C-426/12) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2003/96/EC - Taxation of energy products and electricity - Article 2(4)(b) - Dual use of energy products - Concept))
   2014/C 421/04
   Language of the case: Dutch
   
      Referring court
   
   Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Appellant: X
   
      Respondent: Voorzitter van het managementteam van het onderdeel Belastingdienst/Z van de rijksbelastingdienst
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 2(4)(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, as amended by Council Directive 2004/74/EC of 29 April 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact of using, firstly, coal as a heating fuel in the sugar production process and, secondly, carbon dioxide generated by the combustion of that energy product to produce chemical fertilizers does not constitute ‘dual use’ of that energy product within the meaning of that provision.
               However, the fact of using, firstly, coal as a heating fuel in the sugar production process and, secondly, carbon dioxide generated by the combustion of that energy product for the purposes of the same production process does constitute such ‘dual use’ if it is established that the sugar production process cannot be completed without using the carbon dioxide generated by the combustion of the coal.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               A Member State is entitled to apply, in its national law, a more restrictive scope of the concept of ‘dual use’ than that which it has under the second indent of Article 2(4)(b) of Directive 2003/96, as amended by Directive 2004/74, in order to levy a tax on energy products excluded from the scope of that directive.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 399, 22.12.2012.