CELEX: C2000/176/13
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-113/00: Action brought on 27 March 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Commission of the European Communities

24.6.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 176/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein                          May Article 90 EC (formerly Article 95 of the EC Treaty)
Hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 15 March 2000                      be interpreted as meaning that such national tax legislation
           in the case of Tulliasiamies v Antti Siilin                       is not discriminatory, taking into account in particular that
                                                                             — the starting point is the tax on an equivalent new car,
                         (Case C-101/00)
                                                                             — under the previous law the tax was reduced only after
                                                                                 a period of six months, and
                        (2000/C 176/12)                                      — under both the previous and current law the tax is
                                                                                 reduced linearly as described above?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  3. In addition to using the bases of calculation prescribed in
European Communities by an order of the Korkein Hallinto-                    the national tax legislation, is it always necessary to
oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court), Finland, of 15 March                  establish a vehicle’s individual characteristics to ensure that
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 17 March                   the levying of motor vehicle tax does not lead, in the
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Tulliasiamies v                individual case, to discrimination contrary to Article 90
Antti Siilin on the following questions:                                     EC (formerly Article 95 of the EC Treaty)?
                                                                        VAT payable on motor vehicle tax
Motor vehicle tax                                                       4. May the VAT Directive be interpreted as meaning that the
                                                                             tax called VAT payable on motor vehicle tax under
                                                                             Paragraph 5(1) of the Motor Vehicle Tax Law and Para-
1. Under Paragraph 11 of the Autoverolaki (Motor Vehicle                     graph 1(5) of the Arvonlisäverolaki (Value Added Tax Law)
    Tax Law) in determining motor vehicle tax on a vehicle                   is VAT within the meaning of the VAT Directive, taking
    imported as Community goods, the basis of the taxable                    into account that under national legislation the tax is levied
    value is the transaction value of the vehicle for the taxable            exclusively on the basis of motor vehicle tax?
    person. The transaction value is the customs value within
    the meaning of the Customs Code and Implementation
                                                                        5. If the answer to Question 4 is in the negative, may such a
    Regulation so far as applicable.
                                                                             tax nevertheless be regarded as a tax or charge the levying
                                                                             of which is permitted under Article 33 of the VAT
                                                                             Directive?
    May Article 90 EC (formerly Article 95 of the EC Treaty)
    be interpreted as meaning that such national legislation
    relating to the determination of the taxable value for motor        6. If such national tax provisions are not regarded as contrary
    vehicle tax purposes is not discriminatory, taking into                  to the VAT Directive, may Article 90 EC (formerly Article
    account in particular that the taxable value of a vehicle will           95 of the EC Treaty) be interpreted as meaning that that
    be a different amount depending on which commercial                      those tax provisions are not discriminatory within the
    level the importer of the vehicle operates at, that is,                  meaning of that article?
    whether he operates as a wholesaler, a retailer or a
    consumer?
2. Under Paragraph 7(1) of the Motor Vehicle Tax Law the
    basis of the tax levied on an imported used car is the tax
    on an equivalent new vehicle, with the reductions as laid
    down in that provision. Under the old law 1482/1994, the            Action brought on 27 March 2000 by the Kingdom of
    tax charged on an imported second-hand car was the tax              Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
    on an equivalent new car reduced by 0,5 % for every                                                  ties
    complete calendar month calculated from the time when
    the vehicle had been registered or had been in use for six
    months, and the tax was reduced for only the first 150                                        (Case C-113/00)
    months of use. Under the current law 1160/1998, the tax
    charged on an imported second-hand car is the tax on an
                                                                                                  (2000/C 176/13)
    equivalent new car reduced by 0,6 % per month of use for
    the first 100 months of use and then for the next 100
    months by 0,9 % per month of use of the residual value              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
    calculated at the end of each preceding month, and for              ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
    subsequent months of use by 0,4 % of the residual value             Communities on 27 March 2000 by the Kingdom of Spain,
    calculated at the end of each preceding month. Months of            represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, with an address for
    use are taken as complete calendar months from when the             service in Luxembourg at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard
    vehicle was first taken into use or registered.                     Emmanuel Servais.
 ---pagebreak--- C 176/8                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      24.6.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              — Infringement of Article 87(3)(c) EC: the Commission
                                                                             maintains that any aid the amount of which depends on
                                                                             the quantities produced must be regarded as operating aid
1. annul the Commission’s decision of 22 December 1999
                                                                             which is incompatible with the common market, since it
    concerning aid for horticultural products in Extremadura
                                                                             has no lasting effect on the development of the sector in
    in the 1997/98 marketing year;
                                                                             question. However, the aid neither has, nor is intended to
                                                                             have, the effect of stimulating the production of vegetables,
2. order the defendant institution to pay the costs.                         since it was granted on the basis not of the quantity of
                                                                             vegetables produced but of the quantity intended for
                                                                             industrial processing.
Pleas in law and main arguments
— Infringement of Articles 253 EC and 87(1) EC, on account
    of the absence of a statement of reasons concerning the
    effect on trade between Member States and non-fulfilment
    of the criterion of the existence of such an effect on trade:
    the contested decision lacks even the minimum statement
    of reasons which must be given regarding the effect on
    trade between Member States of aid granted in a form
    which distorts or threatens to distort competition in the
    common market.
                                                                         Action brought on 7 April 2000 by the Commission of
— Infringement of Article 87(3)(a) EC, in conjunction with               the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
    Article 253 EC: the Commission considers that the dero-
    gation contained in Article 87(3)(a) EC is inapplicable
    because the aid was granted not as regional aid but as
    operating aid for the agricultural sector. The Commission’s                                    (Case C-132/00)
    reasoning is inconsistent. The objectives assigned by
    Decree 84/1993 to the grant of incentives for horticultural
    products intended for industrial processing expressly
                                                                                                   (2000/C 176/14)
    include:
    — adapting production to market requirements in such a
         way as to ensure the most efficient use of resources,           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                         the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 April
                                                                         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    — encouraging diversification of alternative forms of                represented by Lena Ström, Legal Adviser in its Legal Service,
         irrigation, and                                                 and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national expert on
                                                                         secondment to its Legal Service, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
    — promoting development of cultivation having wide-
                                                                         Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
         spread social effects.
    The aid is intended to promote economic development in
    a region where the standard of living is low and there is            The Commission claims that the Court should:
    serious unemployment. It has a clear social purpose, in that
    it seeks to introduce stable relations between producers
    and processors, protecting them by means of officially               1. declare that, by failing to enact and to notify to the
    approved contracts for the sale and purchase of raw                      Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the measures
    materials and thereby ensuring supplies to the processing                which it was obliged to adopt in order to comply with its
    industries and the location of those industries in the                   obligations under Article 7 of Council Directive
    production areas.                                                        75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194,
                                                                             p. 39), as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of
                                                                             18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), under Article 6 of
    In view of the foregoing, the Commission should have                     Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on
    reasoned that the aid did not fall within the scope of                   hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20) and under
    Article 87(3)(a) EC, despite the fact that the measures                  Article 14 of European Parliament and Council Directive
    concerned are specific rather than general. It should also,              94/62/EC of 20 December 1994 on packaging and packag-
    at the very least, have provided justification for its decision,         ing waste (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 10), the Hellenic Republic
    adopted in the exercise of its discretion, not to authorise              has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
    small-scale aid designed to mitigate an abnormally serious
    situation within the Community. By failing to do so, it has
    infringed Article 253 EC.                                            2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.