Viamar – Elliniki Aftokiniton kai Genikon Epicheiriseon AE v Elliniko Dimosio.
Date: 2015-12-17
25. According to settled case-law of the Court, whenever the provisions of a directive appear, so far as their subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, they may be relied on before the national courts by individuals against the Member State where the State has failed to transpose the directive into national law within the time-limit or has transposed it incorrectly (see judgment in Stichting Natuur en Milieu and Others , C‑165/09 to C‑167/09, EU:C:2011:348, paragraph 93 and the case-law cited).
29. As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, in the context of the procedure established by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it. To that end, the Court may have to reformulate the questions referred to it (judgment in Brasserie Bouquet , C‑285/14, EU:C:2015:353, paragraph 15 and the case-law cited).
33. It should be remembered in that regard that, according to the Court’s settled case-law, a tax levied by a Member State on the registration of motor vehicles for the purpose of being put into circulation in its territory is neither a customs duty nor a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty within the meaning of Articles 28 TFEU and 30 TFEU. Such a tax is an internal tax and must therefore be examined in the light of Article 110 TFEU (judgment in Tatu , C‑402/09, EU:C:2011:219, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).
35. In those circumstances, as rightly observed by the referring court, taxation such as the registration tax at issue in the main proceedings must be regarded as being internal taxation within the meaning of Article 110 TFEU and does not per se constitute a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty within the meaning of Article 30 TFEU. The mere fact that such a tax must be paid before the vehicle can be registered in the Member State concerned is of no import in that regard (see, by analogy, judgment in Brzeziński , C‑313/05, EU:C:2007:33, paragraphs 23 and 24).
36. The Court has held that Article 110 TFEU may not be relied on against internal taxation imposed on imported products where there is no similar or competing domestic production. In particular, it does not provide a basis for censuring the excessiveness of the level of taxation which the Member States might adopt for particular products, in the absence of any discriminatory or protective effect (judgments in Commission  v Denmark , C‑47/88, EU:C:1990:449, paragraph 10, and De Danske Bilimportører , C‑383/01, EU:C:2003:352, paragraph 38).
39. As regards Directives 92/12 and 2008/118, motor vehicles are not included in the categories of excise goods in all Member States under Articles 3(1) of Directive 92/12 and 1(1) of Directive 2008/118 and therefore are not covered by the harmonised excise duty arrangements. Although Member States may introduce or maintain taxes on those goods, they must exercise their competence in that field in a manner consistent with EU law (see, to that effect, judgment in Fendt Italiana , C‑145/06 and C‑146/06, EU:C:2007:411, paragraphs 41 and 43 and the case-law cited).
40. Specifically, Member States must comply not only with the provisions of the FEU Treaty, in particular Articles 30 and 110, but also with Articles 3(3) of Directive 92/12 and 1(3) of Directive 2008/118, since the latter provisions, as observed in paragraph 27 above, prohibit the levying of a tax from entailing formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers in trade between Member States (see, to that effect, judgment in Fendt Italiana , C‑145/06 and C‑146/06, EU:C:2007:411, paragraphs 42 and 44).
44. It is appropriate to bear in mind in that regard the Court’s case-law, according to which any pecuniary charge, whatever its designation and mode of application, which is imposed unilaterally on goods by reason of the fact that they cross a frontier, and which is not a customs duty in the strict sense, constitutes a charge having equivalent effect within the meaning of Articles 28 TFEU and 30 TFEU (see judgments in Nádasdi and Németh , C‑290/05 and C‑333/05, EU:C:2006:652, paragraphs 38 and 39, and Brzeziński , C‑313/05, EU:C:2007:33, paragraph 22 and the case-law cited).