CELEX: 62014CN0418
Language: en
Date: 2014-09-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-418/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 5 September 2014  — ROZ-ŚWIT Zakład Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowy Henryk Ciurko, Adam Pawłowski spółka jawna v Dyrektor Izby Celnej we Wrocławiu

22.12.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 462/12
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 5 September 2014 — ROZ-ŚWIT Zakład Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowy Henryk Ciurko, Adam Pawłowski spółka jawna v Dyrektor Izby Celnej we Wrocławiu
   (Case C-418/14)
   (2014/C 462/20)
   Language of the case: Polish
   
      Referring court
   
   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: ROZ-ŚWIT Zakład Produkcyjno-Handlowo-Usługowy Henryk Ciurko, Adam Pawłowski spółka jawna
   
      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Celnej we Wrocławiu
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Must Article 5 of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (1), in conjunction with Articles 2(3) and 21(4) thereof, be interpreted as precluding the national rules laid down in Article 89(16) of the Ustawa o podatku akcyzowym (Law on excise duty; ‘the UPA’) of 6 December 2008 (Dz. U. 2009 No 3, heading 11, as amended), which requires that the rate of excise duty laid down in respect of motor fuels be applied to heating oil if the taxable person fails to fulfil the formal condition laid down in Article 89(14) and (15) of the UPA?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Does the principle of proportionality preclude the formal requirement laid down in Article 89(14) and (15) of the UPA, which makes application of the reduced rate of excise duty laid down for heating oil contingent on the drawing up and submission of a list of statements from purchasers within a statutory period, regardless of whether the substantive condition requiring the sale of fuel for heating purposes is fulfilled?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Is the penalty laid down Article 89(16) of the UPA — which consists, as in the circumstances of the present case, in imposing on the seller, in relation to heating oil, excise duty calculated at the rate laid down for motor fuels (Article 89(4)(1) of the UPA) because the formal condition laid down in Article 89(14) and (15) of the UPA is not fulfilled — consistent with the principle of proportionality?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 2003 L 283, p. 51.