British and Irish Legal Information Institute

Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information

[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Meiland Azewijn (Taxation) [2004] EUECJ C-292/02 (09 September 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2004/C29202.html
Cite as: ECLI:EU:C:2004:499, [2004] EUECJ C-292/2, EU:C:2004:499, [2004] EUECJ C-292/02

[New search] [Help]

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The source of this judgment is the web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The information in this database has been provided free of charge and is subject to a Court of Justice of the European Communities disclaimer and a copyright notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)
9 September 2004 (1)

(Excise duties - Mineral oils used in agricultural works - Directive 92/81/EEC - Article 8a - Marking in the Member State where released for consumption - Prohibition on marking in the Member State of use - Directive 95/60/EC)

In Case C-292/02,

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC

from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), made by decision of6 August 2002, registered on13 August 2002, in the proceedings brought by

Meiland Azewijn BV

against

Hauptzollamt Duisburg,

THE COURT (First Chamber),

composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges,

Advocate General: F.G. Jacobs,
Registrar: Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 20 November 2003,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

- Meiland Azewijn BV, by A.M. Crämer, Rechtsanwalt, and F. Kuiper, advocaat,

- Hauptzollamt Duisburg, by M.R. Frind, acting as Agent,

- the Netherlands Government, by H.G. Sevenster, acting as Agent,

- the Commission of the European Communities, by K. Gross, acting as Agent,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 15 January 2004,

gives the following

Judgment

This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 8a of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12), as amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 46) (-�Directive 92/81-�).

The reference was made in the course of proceedings brought by Meiland Azewijn BV against Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) Duisburg, concerning the payment of customs duties on mineral oil contained in the fuel tank of agricultural machinery which was filled up in the Netherlands, that machinery subsequently being used in Germany.

Legal framework

Community legislation

Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 92/108/EEC of 14 December 1992 (OJ 1992 L 390, p. 124) (-�Directive 92/12-�), establishes inter alia the general arrangements governing the conditions of chargeability of excise duties.

According to Article 7(1) and (2) of Directive 92/12:

Directive 92/81 lays down the specific rules governing excise duties on mineral oils.

Article 8(2) of that directive provides:

According to Article 8(8) of Directive 92/81:

Article 8a of Directive 92/81, inserted by Article 2 of Directive 94/74, provides:

The 19th recital in the preamble to Directive 94/74 sets out the objectives of Article 8a of Directive 92/81:

Council Directive 95/60/EC of 27 November 1995 on fiscal marking of gas oils and kerosene (OJ 1995 L 291, p. 46) was adopted pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 92/81.

The first and third recitals in the preamble to Directive 95/60 state:

According to Article 1(1) of Directive 95/60:

Article 3 of Directive 95/60 provides:

National legislation

Article 27(3) of the Wet op de accijns (Law on excise duty) of 31 October 1991 (Stbl. 1991, p. 561) provides for a reduced excise duty for gas oil which is to be used for purposes other than driving road-going motor vehicles, provided that the gas oil is marked as prescribed.

Article 91(2)(a) of that law prohibits the keeping of marked gas oil in the fuel tank of a motor vehicle, except for -�motor vehicles which are not operated on roads-�, as provided for in Article 91(3)(a). Article 91(3)(b), moreover, allows for the possibility of introducing an exception by way of a general administrative measure, for motor vehicles which are not usually used on public roads.

Article 40 of the Uitvoeringsbesluit accijns (Excise duty implementing regulation) of 20 December 1991 (Stbl. 1991, p. 754), adopted on the basis of Paragraph 91(3)(b), defines the category of exempt motor vehicles, which includes motor vehicles intended to be used off-road for agriculture or forestry and which use the public roads only when transferring between work sites.

Paragraph 19(2) of the Mineralölsteuergesetz (Law on the taxation of mineral oils) of 21 December 1992 (BGBl. 1992 I, p. 2185, corrigendum in BGBl. 1993 I, p. 169), as amended by the Gesetz für den Vorrang Erneuerbarer Energien (Law on renewable energy) of 29 March 2000 (BGBl. I, p. 305) (-�the MinöStG-�), provides, by way of derogation from the general rule on the incurring of liability to duty, that when a mineral oil originating from another Member State is brought into the fiscal territory for commercial purposes, no duty is payable on the fuel contained inter alia in the standard fuel tanks of means of transport other than boats, special containers and agricultural and forestry vehicles.

That provision does not, however, preclude a tax debt being incurred in the cases referred to in Paragraph 26(4) to (6) of the MinöStG.

Paragraph 26(4) of the MinöStG prohibits the use of gas oil marked as fuel for the propulsion of agricultural machinery.

The second sentence of Paragraph 26(5) of the MinöStG provides for an exemption from duty for such marked gas oil, but only in specific cases which do not include the regular use of gas oil as fuel.

Paragraph 26(6) of the MinöStG provides that marked gas oil used in breach of Paragraph 26(4) is to be subject to duty. The duty will be charged on at least the quantities corresponding to the capacity of the fuel tank or standard fuel tanks of the vehicle or machinery. The duty is chargeable immediately.

The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

Since 1991 Bod Giesen VOF, which merged with Meiland Azewijn BV in May 2002 (hereinafter together referred to before and after the merger as -�Meiland-�), had operated an agricultural-service supply agency employing about 10 people in the Netherlands. Two thirds of that undertaking-�s customers were in the Netherlands and one third in Germany.

All the agricultural machinery utilised by Meiland in the course of its activities was refuelled in the evening, when it was often not yet known where the machines would be used the next day. Customers might cancel at short notice because of the weather or sometimes it might be necessary to replace machinery that had broken down.

It was impossible, in point of fact, particularly during the harvest season when the undertaking was working under pressure, to replace marked gas oil, which could lawfully be used as fuel in the Netherlands, with unmarked gas oil, the only fuel which could lawfully be used in Germany, because it was too time-consuming to empty or change the tanks. In addition, when fuel was pumped out, there was a risk of traces of marking remaining. These difficulties were exacerbated by the fact that some vehicles were in use first in one then in the other of the two Member States on the same day.

Because of the size of its business, it was also impossible for Meiland to keep its agricultural machinery exclusively for the German market.

On 29 September 2000, in Klein-Netterden (Germany), near the border between Germany and the Netherlands, officials of the Hauptzollamt Duisburg checked two tractors and one combine harvester which Meiland had supplied to harvest maize. The machines were running on marked gas oil. Their tanks had capacities of 135, 165 and 850 litres, respectively.

That same day, the Hauptzollamt Duisburg issued an assessment notice charging Meiland with excise duty on mineral oils in the amount of DEM 851. The duty had been determined on the basis of the capacity of the tanks and the rate applicable at that time, that is, DEM 740 for 1 000 litres, pursuant to Paragraph 26(6) of the MinöStG.

Meiland objected to that assessment notice on the basis that it was contrary to Community law.

By decision of 18 January 2001, the Hauptzollamt Duisburg dismissed the objection as unfounded on the ground that, on German fiscal territory, marked gas oil could be used for heating purposes only, pursuant to the MinöStG. The use of marked gas oil from other Member States to operate agricultural machinery was thus, in principle, prohibited by Paragraph 26(5) of the MinöStG.

Meiland challenged that decision before the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, arguing that the duty imposed on it in Germany amounted to double taxation because it did not take account of the duty already paid in the Netherlands.

According to the national court, the German legislation applied in this case is compatible with Article 1 in conjunction with Article 3 of Directive 95/60, but might be contrary to other provisions of secondary legislation or the EC Treaty, in particular Article 8a(1) of Directive 92/81.

The Finanzgericht Düsseldorf accordingly decided to stay proceedings and refer the following five questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

Examination of the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

Preliminary observation

The last three questions were referred to cover the eventuality of a negative answer to either of the first two questions. They relate in particular to the provisions of secondary law governing the marking of mineral oil and seek to clarify whether priority is to be given to some of the provisions of Directives 95/60 and 92/81 when the implementing rules adopted by the Member States lead to contradictory situations and give rise to impairment of the freedom to provide services. They also relate to the consequences for the parties concerned with regard to the payment of excise duties demanded or refund of duties paid.

The first question

By its first question, the national court essentially asks whether Article 8a(1) of Directive 92/81 is to be construed as prohibiting Member States from charging duty on mineral oil contained in the standard tank of a commercial motor vehicle and used as fuel when that mineral oil has been lawfully released for consumption in another Member State.

It should be borne in mind that Article 7(1) and (2) of Directive 92/12 lays down a general rule that where a product subject to excise duty and released for consumption in one Member State is held for commercial purposes in another Member State, the excise duty is to be levied in that other Member State. The excise duty is therefore chargeable in the Member State where the product is to be used rather than the State where it is released for consumption.

Directive 92/81, however, lays down a specific rule applicable to excise duties on mineral oils. Article 8a(1) of that directive provides that mineral oils released for consumption in a Member State, contained in the standard tanks of commercial motor vehicles and intended to be used as fuel by those same vehicles are not to be subject to excise duty in any other Member State. It follows that, if such a vehicle is moved and used in another Member State, the place where the excise duty is chargeable is the Member State where the mineral oil is released for consumption rather than the State where the vehicle containing it is used.

Nevertheless the remarks made in particular by the national court and the Hauptzollamt Duisburg indicate a certain doubt on their part as to the exact scope of application of Article 8a of Directive 92/81.

Their doubts relate to three points: the first concerns the meaning of -�commercial motor vehicle-�; the second concerns the use of fuel in the Member State to which the vehicle has been brought; and the third concerns possible inconsistencies arising from the fact that the Member States have adopted different approaches to implementing the rule laid down in Article 8a and other rules under secondary legislation.

Turning to the first point, relating to the meaning of the term -�commercial motor vehicle-�, it must be ascertained whether that term encompasses certain agricultural machinery. Referring to the definition of -�commercial motor vehicles-� in other texts of secondary legislation, the Hauptzollamt Duisburg maintains that only road vehicles transporting persons and goods are covered and that the machinery in question in the main proceedings, that is to say, two tractors and a combine harvester, are, accordingly, not covered. The relevant legislative texts are, more specifically, Council Directive 68/297/EEC of 19 July 1968 on the standardisation of provisions regarding the duty-free admission of fuel contained in the fuel tanks of commercial motor vehicles (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 313) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 1).

The Court finds that while Article 8a does not contain a definition of -�commercial motor vehicle-�, it does not follow that the definitions contained in other texts of secondary legislation are relevant. As the Advocate General stated in paragraph 44 of his Opinion, the two definitions invoked by the Hauptzollamt Duisburg are not co-terminous and the texts in which they are found pursue objectives which are different from that of Directive 92/81. In those circumstances, it is not necessary to refer to those texts to determine the meaning of the term -�commercial motor vehicle-�, but rather it is appropriate to refer to the scheme and purpose of the provision in which it is found.

It is apparent from the wording of Article 8a of Directive 92/81, in the light of the objectives thereof as set out in the 19th recital in the preamble to Directive 94/74, namely to protect freedom of movement for individuals and goods and to prevent double taxation, that that provision must be interpreted broadly.

It follows that the restrictive interpretation of the term -�commercial motor vehicle-� suggested by the Hauptzollamt Duisburg cannot be accepted. On the contrary, that article must be construed as extending to agricultural machinery using mineral oils as fuel.

As to the second point concerning the use of fuel in the Member State to which the vehicle has been brought, this relates more specifically to the issue of whether the rule laid down in Article 8a(1) of Directive 92/81 applies only where the mineral oil serving as fuel is used exclusively to move the vehicle and bring it into another Member State or whether it also applies when the mineral oil serves for other purposes as well, such as the performance of agricultural work, in that other Member State.

As stated by the Advocate General in paragraphs 36 and 37 of his Opinion, the interpretation advocated by the Hauptzollamt Duisburg to the effect that the fuel may be used only to propel a commercial agricultural vehicle and bring it into another Member State, any other function in that State being excluded, is unduly restrictive and clearly runs counter to the objectives referred to in paragraph 41 above.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the rule laid down in Article 8a(1) of Directive 92/81 is not limited to instances where the vehicle is simply brought into another Member State, but also applies where the fuel is used for other purposes such as agricultural works.

The third point relates to whether a broad interpretation of Article 8a is possible even where such an interpretation clashes in practice with the implementation of other provisions of that directive and of Directive 95/60.

Thus, in its order for reference, the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf refers to the fact that, under Netherlands legislation, gas oil used in agricultural machinery benefits from a reduction in excise duties and there is a mandatory requirement that it be marked, whereas under German legislation, since gas oil used for the same purposes is subject to an excise duty refund system, marking thereof is expressly prohibited.

The Court notes that the different choices made by the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of the Netherlands on the basis of Directive 92/81 and Directive 95/60 lead to a situation where marked mineral oil is lawfully sold in the Netherlands for the purposes of use as fuel in agricultural machinery, whereas in Germany it is prohibited to use that product for such purposes if it is marked and any unlawful use thereof is penalised by the levying of excise duties.

That difference may be explained by the fact that the Kingdom of the Netherlands, acting pursuant to Article 8(2)(f) of Directive 92/81, in its initial version, has chosen to reduce the rate of excise duties on the mineral oils in question and to monitor the use made thereof by means of marking, in accordance with Article 1 of Directive 95/60. By contrast, since the Federal Republic of Germany, acting pursuant to Articles 8(2)(f) and 8(8) of Directive 92/81, has provided for an excise duty refund system, the mineral oil in question does not qualify for any specific reduction when it is released for consumption and it is not therefore necessary to mark it. On the contrary, because the Federal Republic of Germany operates a refund system, it must ensure that the mineral oil has not been purchased at a reduced rate of duty. To that end it prohibits the use of marked mineral oil, a sign that it has been purchased at a reduced rate of excise duty, and provides for penalties on the basis of Article 3 of Directive 95/60.

In order to resolve inconsistencies arising from the measures taken to transpose secondary legislation, inter alia in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings where the undertaking in question, Meiland, is prohibited from using, in Germany, as fuel in the tanks of its agricultural machinery marked mineral oil which it purchased lawfully in the Netherlands, it is necessary to interpret the provisions of Directive 95/60 pertaining to marking procedures and monitoring in light of the objectives of that directive and of Directive 92/81 and having regard to the scheme of the provisions of those directives.

Directive 95/60, relating to fiscal marking, was adopted pursuant to Article 9 of Directive 92/81. Far from being inconsistent with the objective of Directive 92/81, the objective of Directive 95/60, as evidenced by the first and third recitals in the preamble thereto, is to complement the former by contributing to the achievement and proper functioning of the internal market.

Article 3 of Directive 95/60 thus provides that Member States are to take the necessary steps to ensure that improper use of marked products is avoided and, in particular, that marked mineral oils are not used for combustion in the engine of a road-going motor vehicle. However, no prohibition or any penalty attaching thereto can be issued if use of such products is permitted in specific cases determined by the competent authorities of the Member States.

As stated by the Advocate General in paragraph 40 of his Opinion, a use permitted by a Member State in accordance with Community law, such as the use of marked mineral oil provided for by the Netherlands legislation, cannot be considered improper within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 95/60 by another Member State.

It follows that a Member State such as the Federal Republic of Germany cannot, on the basis of its own rules, prohibit the use of mineral oil marked as fuel in the standard tank of a commercial motor vehicle from another Member State, such as the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which allows such a practice.

In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question must be that Article 8a(1) of Directive 92/81 is to be interpreted as prohibiting Member States from subjecting to excise duty mineral oil, whether marked or unmarked, contained in the standard tank of a commercial motor vehicle, such as agricultural machinery, and used as fuel not only to move the vehicle but also in order to utilise it for other purposes such as agricultural work, when that mineral oil has been lawfully released for consumption in another Member State.

The second question

By its second question, the national court is asking essentially whether Article 8a(1) of Directive 92/81 has direct effect, so that it may be relied on by individuals such as Meiland in proceedings before national courts against national rules that run counter to it.

It is clear from the case-law of the Court that wherever the provisions of a directive appear, as far as their subject-matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, those provisions may, in the absence of implementing measures adopted within the prescribed period, be relied upon as against any national provision which is incompatible with the directive or in so far as the provisions define rights which individuals are able to assert against the State (Case C-'346/97 Braathens [1999] ECR I-3419, paragraph 29).

In Braathens, cited above, the Court considered whether Article 8(1)(b) of Directive 92/81 has direct effect. That article provides that Member States are to exempt from the harmonised excise duty, under conditions which they are to lay down for the purpose of ensuring the correct and straightforward application of such exemptions and of preventing any evasion, avoidance or abuse, mineral oils supplied for use as fuels for the purpose of air navigation other than private pleasure flying.

The Court found, in paragraph 30 of its judgment, that, although Directive 92/81 allows the Member States a varying degree of latitude in implementing certain of the provisions thereof, individuals may not for that reason be denied the right to rely on any provisions which, owing to their particular subject-matter, are capable of being severed from the general body of provisions and applied as such.

The Court held that Article 8(1)(b) of Directive 92/81 constitutes such a provision and that the obligation to exempt from the harmonised excise duty the fuel used for the purpose of air navigation other than private pleasure flying is sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional to confer on individuals the right to rely on it in proceedings before national courts with a view to contesting national rules that are incompatible with it (see Braathens, cited above, paragraphs 31 and 32).

It must be held that Article 8a(1) of Directive 92/81 also imposes on the Member States a clear, precise and unconditional obligation in the form of a prohibition on subjecting to excise duty certain mineral oils released for consumption in another Member State. The corollary to that prohibition is the right of individuals not to be required to pay excise duty when they use the mineral oil as fuel in the standard tank of their commercial motor vehicle in order to operate the vehicle, when that oil has been released for consumption in another Member State.

Accordingly, the answer to the second question must be that the prohibition in Article 8a(1) of Directive 92/81 may be relied on by individuals in proceedings before national courts in order to contest national rules that are incompatible with that prohibition.

In the light of the answers to the first two questions, it is not necessary to answer the three other questions referred by the national court.

Costs

Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

1. Article 8a(1) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, as amended by Council Directive 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994, is to be interpreted as prohibiting Member States from subjecting to excise duty mineral oil, whether marked or unmarked, contained in the standard tank of a commercial motor vehicle, such as agricultural machinery, and used as fuel not only to move the vehicle but also in order to utilise it for other purposes, such as agricultural work, when that mineral oil has been lawfully released for consumption in another Member State.

2. The prohibition in Article 8a(1) of Directive 92/81 as amended may be relied on by individuals in proceedings before national courts in order to contest national rules that are incompatible with that prohibition.

1 - Language of the case: German.

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010