EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
2009 - 2014
Committee on Petitions
29.11.2013
NOTICE TO MEMBERS
Subject:
1.
Petition 0054/2012 by P. G. R. (Romanian), on the pollution tax imposed on
second-hand vehicles purchased overseas
Summary of petition
The petitioner has taken steps to register in Romania a motor vehicle registered in the United
Kingdom, but was informed that the registration could only take place after the payment of
the pollution tax. The petitioner deplores the fact that, although the Court of Justice of the
European Union has declared the pollution tax to be contrary to European legislation in the
Tatu (C-402/09) and Nisipeanu (C-263/10) cases, some judicial and governmental courts are
ignoring the Court’s judgments and are still imposing the payment of this tax.
2.
Admissibility
Declared admissible on 22 May 2012. Information requested from Commission under Rule
202(6).
3.
Commission reply, received on 30 August 2012
It must be noted at the outset that there is no harmonization at European Union level in the
area of vehicle taxation. Therefore, Member States remain free to impose such taxes and to
unilaterally decide upon their level and method of calculation.
It may thus happen that following a change of residence of the owner, the same car is taxed in
the Member State of the new residence, although it had already been taxed in the Member
State of the former residence. This situation is however, in the absence of common rules, not
CM\1012827EN.doc
EN
PE494.757v02-00
United in diversity
EN
as such contrary to EU law1.
That notwithstanding, Member States have to respect the general rules of EU law in regard to
indirect taxes. In this regard, the Court of Justice has consistently ruled that registration or
pollution taxes, such as the pollution tax levied in Romania, are manifestly of a fiscal nature
and are charged not by reason of a motor vehicle crossing the border of the Member State
applying it, but because of other operative events, which include the first-time registration of
a motor vehicle in that Member State2. They must, therefore, be regarded as a part of a
general system of internal dues on goods and hence examined in the light of Article 110 of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), i.e. they must not discriminate
against the goods of other Member States.
The Commission is aware of the judgments of the Court of Justice in the Tatu and Nisipeanu
cases, as well as of the subsequent orders3 of the Court on the issues raised by the pollution
tax legislation in Romania in regard to Article 110 TFEU.
The Commission is currently examining a proposal to amend the legislation at stake and is in
contact with the Romanian authorities in this connection.
The Commission does not have the competence to solve the problems of particular taxpayers
in their specific cases. The role of the Commission as "guardian of the Treaties" is to ensure
that the laws and administrative practices of Member States are in conformity with EU Law.
To this effect, in case a Member State does not transpose or incorrectly transposes EU
legislation or applies incorrectly in practice in a general manner national legislation which is
in conformity with EU Law, the Commission may initiate an infringement procedure against
the Member State concerned. However, only the Commission and the Member State are
considered parties in this procedure, to the exclusion of a particular taxpayer. Hence, the
outcome of this procedure does not have direct effect in specific cases. Therefore, the only
way to seek redress in particular cases, even further to a judgment of the Court of Justice, is to
have recourse to national courts, the only ones which can provide a direct remedy in
individual cases (such as ordering the reimbursement by the administration, annulling
administrative decisions or awarding damages).
In this context, it is worth mentioning that it appears that the first instance court (i.e.
Tribunalul Iaşi) ruled4 in favour of the petitioner with regard to his claim against the levying
1
2
3
4
Judgment of the Court of 15 July 2004 in Case C-365/02 Marie Lindfors, paragraph 34.
Judgment of the Court of 17 June 2003 in Case C-383/01 De Danske Bilimportører v Skatteministeriet, Told- og
Skattestyrelsen, paragraph 34.
Order of the Court of 13 July 2011 in case C-335/10, Administraţia Finanţelor Publice a Municipiului Târgu-Jiu and
Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu v Claudia Norica Vijulan, Order of the Court of 8 April 2011 in case C-336/10,
Administraţia Finanţelor Publice a Municipiului Târgu-Jiu and Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu v Victor Vinel Ijac,
Order of the Court of 8 April 2011, Daniel Ionel Obreja v Ministerul Economiei şi Finanţelor and Direcţia Generală a
Finanţelor Publice a judeţului Mureş (case C-136/10), Ministerul Economiei şi Finanţelor and Others v SC Darmi SRL
(case C-178/10) and Order of the Court of 8 April 2011, Aurora Elena Sfichi v Direcţia Generală a Finanţelor Publice
Suceava, Administraţia Finanţelor Publice Suceava, Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu (C-29/11), Adrian Ilaş v Direcţia
Generalâ a Finanţelor Publice Suceava, Administraţia Finanţelor Publice Suceava, Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu
(C-30/11).
Information available on the website of Tribunalul Iaşi,
http://portal.just.ro/InstantaDosar.aspx?idInstitutie=99&d=OTkwMDAwMDAwMDA4NDM3NA**, consulted on 09 July
2012.
PE494.757v02-00
EN
2/3
CM\1012827EN.doc
of the pollution tax.
The Commission will continue to examine the proposal to amend the Romanian legislation
concerning the pollution tax with a view to ensure conformity with EU Law as interpreted by
the Court of Justice.
4.
Further Commission reply (REV), received on 29 November 2013
The petitioner refers to the Government Emergency Order No 50/2008 (OUG No 50/2008) as
the legal basis for levying the pollution tax upon the registration in Romania of a car already
registered in the United Kingdom.
As regards OUG No 50/2008, the Court of Justice decided1 that Article 110 of the Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) must be interpreted as precluding a Member
State from introducing a pollution tax levied on motor vehicles on their first registration in
that Member State if that tax is arranged in such a way that it discourages the placing in
circulation in that Member State of second-hand vehicles purchased in other Member States
without discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on
the domestic market.
Romania repealed OUG No 50/2008. Pursuant to the Government Emergency Order No
9/2013 currently in force, the environmental stamp is charged not only upon the first
registration in Romania of second-hand cars purchased in other Member States, but also upon
the purchase of second-hand vehicles on the domestic market which have not been subject to
any of the registration taxes previously in force (including where a national court has decided
the refund of a previous tax or the registration of the car without the payment of a tax).
Conclusion
Given that Romania removed the incompatibility of the car registration tax with Article 110
TFEU as interpreted by the Court of Justice in the Tatu judgment, there is no further action
that the Commission could take on this matter.
1
Judgment of the Court of 7 April 2011 in case C-402/09, Ioan Tatu v Statul român prin Ministerul Finanțelor și Economiei.
CM\1012827EN.doc
3/3
PE494.757v02-00
EN