Marie Lindfors.
Date: 2004-07-15
17. The Court has already held, in its judgment of 19 September 2002 in Case C-101/00 Tulliasiamies and Siilin  [2002] ECR I-7487, paragraphs 61 and 80, that autovero constitutes discriminatory internal taxation prohibited by Article 90 EC in so far as the amount of that tax on an imported used car exceeds the amount of the residual tax incorporated in the value of a similar used car already registered in Finnish territory.
24. It must first be examined whether, as Ms Lindfors and the Commission claim, autovero falls within the scope of Article 1(1) of Directive 83/183. It should be noted in this respect that the name given to a tax in national law is not as such decisive for the assessment of whether the tax in question is one referred to in that provision.
26. In those circumstances, a tax such as autovero cannot be regarded as a tax connected with importation falling within the scope of the exemption laid down in Article 1(1) of Directive 83/183. The chargeable event for that tax is the use of a vehicle on Finnish territory, which is not necessarily connected with the act of importation (see, to that effect, Case C-387/01 Weigel  [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 47).
32. Although the national court has formally limited its question to the interpretation of Article 1 of Directive 83/183, that does not preclude the Court from providing the national court with all those elements for the interpretation of Community law which may be of assistance in adjudicating on the case pending before it, whether or not that court has specifically referred to them in its question (see, to that effect, Case C-241/89 SARPP  [1990] ECR I-4695, paragraph 8; Case C-315/92 Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb (‘Clinique’)  [1994] ECR I-317, paragraph 7; Case C-87/97 Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola  [1999] ECR I-1301, paragraph 16; and Weigel , paragraph 44).
34. It has already been held that the EC Treaty offers no guarantee to a citizen of the Union that transferring his activities to a Member State other than that in which he previously resided will be neutral as regards taxation. Given the disparities in the tax legislation of the Member States, such a transfer may be to the citizen’s advantage in terms of indirect taxation or not, according to circumstance. It follows that, in principle, any disadvantage, by comparison with the situation in which that citizen carried on activities prior to that transfer, is not contrary to Article 18 EC, provided that the legislation concerned does not place that citizen at a disadvantage as compared with those already subject to such a tax (see Weigel , paragraph 55).
35. The case-file shows that the Law on Car Tax provides, in Paragraph 25(1), for a tax reduction of up to FIM 80 000 (EUR 13 455) inter alia for citizens of the Union exercising their right to freedom of movement in connection with a transfer of residence to Finland. It will be for the national court to ascertain whether the application of that provision and any other provisions of national law is capable of ensuring that, as regards that tax, Ms Lindfors is not placed in a less favourable position than that of citizens who have been permanently resident in Finland. Should the national court find that such a less favourable situation exists, it will have to examine whether that difference in treatment is justified by objective considerations independent of the residence of the persons concerned and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued by national law (see Case C-224/98 D’Hoop  [2002] ECR I-6191, paragraph 36).