CELEX: 62008CN0201
Language: en
Date: 2008-05-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-201/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessische Finanzgericht, Kassel (Germany) lodged on 16 May 2008 — Plantanol GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Darmstadt

19.7.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 183/14
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessische Finanzgericht, Kassel (Germany) lodged on 16 May 2008 — Plantanol GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Darmstadt
   (Case C-201/08)
   (2008/C 183/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Hessische Finanzgerichts, Kassel
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: Plantanol GmbH & Co.KG
   
      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Darmstadt
   Questions referred
   
               1.
            
            
               Is a national provision such as Paragraph 50(1)(1) of the Energy Tax Law (Energiesteuergesetz), as amended by the Biofuel Quota Law (Biokraftstoffquotengesetz) of 18 December 2006, which does not accord an advantage to that part of a fuel blend consisting of a biofuel composed of vegetable oil meeting the DIN V 51605 standard (as it stood in July 2006) contrary to Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport (Biofuel Directive) (1), particularly in the light of recitals 10, 12, 14, 19, 22 and 27 therein?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Does the Community law principle of legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations require that it should be permissible only in wholly exceptional circumstances for a Member State which adopts rules for the implementation of that directive and, in doing so, has established a promotion scheme consisting of tax advantages spread over several years, to amend that scheme, during the time-limit laid down, to the disadvantage of an undertaking which previously enjoyed an advantage?
            
         
      (1)  OJ L 123, p. 42.