Deutsche See-Bestattungs-Genossenschaft eG v Hauptzollamt Kiel.
Date: 2004-04-01
17. In order to answer the question referred to the Court, it should be pointed out that it appears from the third and fifth recitals in the preamble to Directive 92/81 that the directive is intended to determine a  number of common definitions for mineral oil products which are to be subject to the general excise system and to lay down certain exemptions relating to those products which are obligatory at Community level.
18. It is also apparent both from those recitals and from the title of Directive 92/81 that those common definitions and the exemptions laid down are intended to promote the proper functioning of the internal market and to set up a harmonised system in respect of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils at Community level.
19. Consequently, the definitions relating to the products governed by Directive 92/81 and the exemptions applicable to them should be interpreted independently on the basis of the wording of the provisions in question and on the purpose of the directive.
20. An independent interpretation of those exemptions is all the more essential because, as the Court held in Case C-346/97 Braathens  [1999] ECR I‑3419, paragraph 31, Article 8(1) of Directive 92/81 imposes on the Member States the obligation not to levy the harmonised excise duty on mineral oils supplied for use as fuel for a number of activities set out in that provision.
21. Any divergent interpretation at national level of those exemption obligations would not only undermine the objectives of the Community legislation and legal certainty, but could introduce unequal treatment between the economic operators concerned.
22. It is apparent from the first paragraph of Article 8(1)(c) that ‘mineral oils supplied for use as fuel for the purposes of navigation within Community waters’ are exempt from the harmonised excise duty. That provision provides for a sole exception, stating that the exemption does not apply to mineral oils used for the purposes of navigation ‘in private pleasure craft’. The second paragraph of that provision defines the term ‘private pleasure craft’ as craft used ‘for other than commercial purposes’.
23. It therefore follows that all navigation activity for commercial purposes comes within the scope of the exemption from the harmonised excise duty provided for in the first paragraph of Article 8(1)(c) of Directive 92/81.
25. It should be noted in this respect that Article 8(1)(c) of the directive does not make any distinction as to the purpose of the navigation referred to. The distortions of competition which the provisions of the directive are intended to avoid can arise whatever the type of commercial navigation at issue.
28. As regards the case in the main proceedings, it is not disputed that t he navigation activity carried out by Deutsche See constitutes a supply of services for consideration. Because of its commercial nature, that navigation activity does not fall within the exception laid down for private pleasure craft with the result that it is covered by the exemption.
29. In those circumstances, the answer to the question referred must therefore be that Article 8(1)(c) of Directive 92/81 should be interpreted to mean that the term ‘navigation within Community waters (including fishing), other than in private pleasure craft’ includes all forms of navigation, irrespective of the purpose of the voyage, when it is made for commercial purposes.