CELEX: 62009CA0002
Language: en
Date: 2010-06-03 00:00:00
Title: Case C-2/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Regionalna Mitnicheska Direktsia — Plovdiv v Petar Dimitrov Kalinchev (Excise duties — Taxation of used vehicles — Taxation of imported used vehicles higher than that imposed on vehicles which are already in circulation in the national territory — Taxation according to the year of manufacture and mileage of the vehicles — Concept of ‘similar domestic products’ )

14.8.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 221/8
            
         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 3 June 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Regionalna Mitnicheska Direktsia — Plovdiv v Petar Dimitrov Kalinchev
   (Case C-2/09) (1)
   
   (Excise duties - Taxation of used vehicles - Taxation of imported used vehicles higher than that imposed on vehicles which are already in circulation in the national territory - Taxation according to the year of manufacture and mileage of the vehicles - Concept of ‘similar domestic products’)
   2010/C 221/12
   Language of the case: Bulgarian
   
      Referring court
   
   Varhoven administrativen sad
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Regionalna Mitnicheska Direktsia — Plovdiv
   
      Defendant: Petar Dimitrov Kalinchev
   
      Re:
   
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Varhoven Administrativen Sad — Interpretation of Article 25 and Article 90, first paragraph, of the EC Treaty and of Article 3(3) of 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) — National (excise) duty imposed on second-hand motor vehicles from a Member State on their introduction onto national territory, higher than the excise payable on new motor vehicles introduced onto the same national territory, which, being already in circulation, are no longer subject to excise duties on their subsequent resale as second-hand vehicles — Meaning of ‘similar domestic products’ — Compatibility of national legislation with Community rules
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               The first subparagraph of Article 3(3) of 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 does not apply to a case such as the main proceedings and cannot therefore preclude a Member State from laying down provisions levying excise duty on the introduction of used motor vehicles into its territory, if that duty is not directly payable on the second-hand purchase of such vehicles which are already in the country and on which excise duty has already been paid on first introduction into the territory of the Member State, provided that such a system does not give rise to border-crossing formalities in trade between Member States.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The first paragraph of Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that used vehicles imported into Bulgaria must be considered as similar products to used vehicles already registered in that State which were imported into that State as new vehicles, independently of their origin.
            
         
               3.
            
            
               The first paragraph of Article 110 TFEU precludes a Member State from applying differing rules on the levying of excise duty on motor vehicles in circumstances such as those in the present case where that excise duty is levied differently on used vehicles imported from other Member States and used vehicles already registered in that State and which were imported into that State as new vehicles.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 55, 7.3.2009.