Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 2000-12-07
4 As well as making certain exceptions to that rule, Directive 92/83 provides for certain exemptions inspired in most cases by the wish to neutralise the impact of excise duties on alcohol used as an intermediate product in other commercial or industrial products.
21 The Italian Government states, in its reply, that denaturing is a process designed to render alcohol toxic so that it cannot be neutralised or re-converted for use in food products.
22 The denaturing formulae require for the manufacture of detergents use of the State-approved general denaturant. This is a highly toxic stabiliser which prevents chemical re-conversion of denatured alcohol into potable alcohol.
40 It must be observed at the outset that it is clear from the wording of Article 27(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 92/83 that the grant or refusal of an exemption is dependent on the denaturing method.
41 If that method has been approved at Community level, the alcohol is exempted from excise duties under Article 27(1)(a). If, on the other hand, the alcohol contained in a product not intended for human consumption has been denatured in accordance with a method approved in a Member State, the exemption provided for by Article 27(1)(b) should be applied. Moreover, if the denaturing method is not one of those approved either by the Community rules or by national laws then the product cannot be exempted.
42 Consequently, it would be contrary to Directive 92/83 to withhold exemption for a product which meets the conditions laid down in Article 27(1)(b) solely because it has been found that the use for which it is really intended does not correspond with the name assigned to it by the trader. Neither the use of pure alcohol nor the maximum alcohol content was considered by the Community legislature as a criterion for application of the exemption.
44 In such circumstances, a Member State's refusal to exempt a product from excise duties under Article 27(1) of Directive 92/83 as a penalty for infringing national provisions enacted in implementation of a directive concerning cosmetic products, such as Directive 76/768, is serving a purpose alien to that of Directive 92/83 (see, to that effect, Case C-111/92 Lange v Finanzamt Fürstenfeldbruck [1993] ECR I-4677, paragraph 22).
49 According to settled case-law of the Court, where there is divergence between the various language versions of a Community text, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms part (see, in particular, Case C-434/97 Commission v France [2000] ECR I-1129, paragraph 22).
50 Exemption of products covered by Article 27(1)(a) and (b) of Directive 92/83 is the rule and refusal is the exception. The power granted to Member States by Article 27(1) of Directive 92/83 to lay down conditions for the purpose of ensuring the correct and straightforward application of such exemptions and of preventing any evasion, avoidance or abuse cannot detract from the unconditional nature of the obligation imposed by that provision to grant exemption (see, to that effect, Case C-346/97 Braathens [1999] ECR I-3419, paragraph 31).
51 It must also be borne in mind that measures adopted unilaterally by Member States in order to combat evasion, avoidance or abuse are subject to monitoring by the other Member States and the Community institutions pursuant to the combined provisions of Article 27(5) of Directive 92/83 and Article 24 of Directive 92/12.
52 In those circumstances, the general scheme of the rules at issue implies that the Member State concerned must put forward, at the very least, concrete evidence of a serious risk of evasion, avoidance or abuse.