CELEX: 62008CA0201
Language: en
Date: 2009-09-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-201/08: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel (Germany)) — Plantanol GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Darmstadt (Directive 2003/30/EC — Promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport — Directive 2003/96/EC — Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity — Blend of vegetable oil, additives and fuel — Biofuels — National rules — Tax exemption — Replacement of the exemption by an obligation to maintain a minimum biofuel content in fuels — Conformity with Directives 2003/30/EC and 2003/96/EC — General principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations)

7.11.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 267/19
            
         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel (Germany)) — Plantanol GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Darmstadt
   (Case C-201/08) (1)
   
   (Directive 2003/30/EC - Promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport - Directive 2003/96/EC - Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity - Blend of vegetable oil, additives and fuel - Biofuels - National rules - Tax exemption - Replacement of the exemption by an obligation to maintain a minimum biofuel content in fuels - Conformity with Directives 2003/30/EC and 2003/96/EC - General principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations)
   2009/C 267/33
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Plantanol GmbH & Co. KG
   
      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Darmstadt
   
      Re:
   
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hessisches Finanzgericht (Germany) — Interpretation of Article 3 of 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 (OJ 2003 L 123, p. 42) and the principles of legal certainty and legitimate expectation — National legislation replacing, before the time-limit laid down by the previous legislation, rules providing for tax exemptions for biofuels forming part of a fuel blend with an obligation to add biofuels to conventional fuels, with the effect of placing producers who had taken advantage of those exemptions at an economic disadvantage.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Article 3 of 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 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude national rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings which exclude, from the tax exemption scheme provided for in those rules for biofuels, a product, such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, which is composed of a blend of vegetable oil, fossil gas oil and specific additives.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               The general principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations do not in principle preclude a Member State, with regard to a product such as the one at issue in the main proceedings, from withdrawing, before the expiry date initially laid down in the national rules, a tax exemption scheme which applied to such products. In any event, such a withdrawal does not require the presence of exceptional circumstances. However, it is for the national court to consider, in the context of an overall assessment in the specific case, whether those principles have been respected in the main proceedings by taking account of all relevant circumstances relating to the case.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.