C-325/98
ECLI:EU:C:1999:244
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61998CO0325
- Citované
- 7× inými rozhodnutiami
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
ANSSENS v DIRECTEUR DES SERVICES FISCAUX DU NORD
ORDER OF THE COURT 11 May 1999 *
In Case C-325/98,
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Lille (France), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Philippe Anssens
and
Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Nord
on the interpretation of Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC),
* Language of the case: French.
I - 2971
ORDER OF 11. 5. 1999 — CASE C-325/98
T H E COURT,
composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and P. Jann, Presidents of Chambers, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, H . Ragnemalm, L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges,
Advocate General: G. Cosmas, Registrar: R. Grass,
after hearing the views of the Advocate General,
makes the following
Order
1 By judgment of 7 August 1998, received at the Court on 31 August 1998, the Tri- bunal de Grande Instance de Lille referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) a question on the inter- pretation of Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC).
2 That question was raised in the context of a dispute between Mr Anssens and the Directeur des Services Fiscaux du N o r d with regard to two demands for payment
I - 2972
ANSSENS v DIRECTEUR DES SERVICES FISCAUX DU NORD
issued by the latter against Mr Anssens for failure to pay tax on motor vehicles (hereinafter 'the tax') for the years 1992/93 and 1993/94.
3 According to the judgment making the reference, Mr Anssens is the owner of a vehicle 'of no make', first put on the road on 6 April 1988. The tax authorities determined the fiscal horsepower value of that vehicle at 24 CV.
4 Mr Anssens was twice reported, on 29 July 1993 and 30 July 1994, for failure to pay the tax for the years 1992/93 and 1993/94. H e was sent two demands for pay- ment on 12 September 1994 and 17 October 1994 for payment of FRF 32 356 for 1993 and FRF 35 438 for 1994. By decision dated 27 November 1995 the Directeur des Services Fiscaux rejected Mr Anssen's complaint that he should be exonerated from the tax on the ground that the tax was discriminatory under Article 95 of the Treaty. Mr Anssens brought proceedings against the Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Nord before the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Lille for exoneration from the duties he had been called upon to pay.
5 Mr Anssens produced before the national court graphs showing the evolution of the tax and argued that the tax as a whole was contrary to Article 95 of the Treaty because of its discriminatory nature, in particular against vehicles of foreign manu- facture with a fiscal power value of over 18 CV.
6 In those circumstances, the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Lille took the view that it was necessary to stay proceedings and refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
'Considering that, as Community law stands at present, the Member States remain free to subject products such as cars to a system of road tax the amount
I - 2973
ORDER OF 11. 5. 1999 — CASE C-325/98
of which increases progressively according to an objective criterion such as cylinder capacity, provided that that system of taxation is free from any discriminatory or protective effect, may the tax system established by the French legislature be regarded as corresponding to the above criteria of objectivity and non-discrimination, that tax system including:
1. successive differentials between one band and the next, taking as the basis the first band covering 2-3-4 CV fiscal power value, 95-96 tax disc for the départe- ment of Charente, whose amount is FRF 206, namely:
for the 19 and 20 CV band FRF 1 910 for the 21 and 22 CV band FRF 2 888 for the 23 CV and over band FRF 4 332
whereas the maximum successive differential for the preceding bands covering lower fiscal power values is FRF 1118;
2. differentials weighted by band and fiscal power value of:
FRF 955 for the 19 and 20 CV band FRF 1 444 for the 21 and 22 CV band FRF 4 332 for the 23 CV and over band
whereas the maximum weighted differential for the preceding bands is FRF 373 (12, 13 and 14 CV fiscal values band);
I - 2974
ANSSENS v DIRECTEUR DES SERVICES FISCAUX DU NORD
3. a cost of the tax disc per fiscal horsepower of:
FRF 302.70 corresponding to the administrative fiscal power rating of 19 CV FRF 287.60 corresponding to the administrative fiscal power rating of 20 CV FRF 411.40 corresponding to the administrative fiscal power rating of 21 CV FRF 392.70 corresponding to the administrative fiscal power rating of 22 CV FRF 564.00 corresponding to the administrative fiscal power rating of 23 CV FRF 540.30 corresponding to the administrative fiscal power rating of 24 CV FRF 518.90 corresponding to the administrative fiscal power rating of 25 CV
whereas the highest cost per fiscal horsepower is FRF 226 for a vehicle of 17 CV power rating;
4. a mean cost per horsepower of:
FRF 295.00 for the 19 and 20 CV fiscal band FRF 401.80 for the 21 and 22 CV band FRF 541.10 for the 23 CV and over band
whereas the highest cost per fiscal horsepower is FRF 202.20 for the 15-16 CV band;
5. successive differentials expressed as percentages of the tax compared to the basic tax (FRF 260):
735% for the 19 and 20 CV band compared to the 17 and 18 CV band 1 111% for the 21 and 22 CV band compared to the 19 and 20 CV band 1 666% for the 23 CV and over band compared to the 21 and 22 CV band
I - 2975
ORDER OF 11. 5. 1999 — CASE C-325/98
whereas the maximum percentage increase amounts to 430% and relates to the 12 to 14 CV band compared to the 10 and 11 CV band;
6. a multiplying coefficient for each band in relation to the basic tax, which is FRF 260, amounting to: 22.12 for 19 and 20 CV 33.23 for 21 and 22 CV 49.89 for 23 CV and over
whereas the highest coefficient is only 14.78 and relates to the 17 and 18 CV band, that of the preceding band (15-16 CV) being 12.05;
it being observed that in any event French production does not include vehicles with a fiscal horsepower greater than 17 CV?'
7 It must be pointed out, at the outset, that the need to provide an interpretation of Community law which will be of use to the national court makes it necessary that the national court define the factual and legislative context of the questions it is asking or, at the very least, explain the factual circumstances on which those ques- tions are based (see, in particular, the judgment in Joined Cases C-320/90 to C-322/90 Telemarsicabruzzo and Others v Circostel and Others [1993] E C R 1-393, paragraph 6, and the orders in Case C-157/92 Banchero [1993] E C R 1-1085, paragraph 4; Case C-378/93 La Pyramide [1994] I - 3 9 9 9 , paragraph 14; Case C-458/93 Saddik [1995] ECR 1-511, paragraph 12; Case C-196/96 Lahlou [1996] E C R 1-3945, paragraph 4; and Case C-9/98 Agostini [1998] E C R 1-4261, paragraph 4).
8 Moreover, it should be pointed out that the information provided in decisions making references serves not only to enable the Court to give helpful answers but also to enable the Governments of the Member States and other interested parties to submit observations pursuant to Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice (see, in particular, the judgment in Joined Cases 141/81, 142/81 and
I - 2976
ANSSENS v DIRECTEUR DES SERVICES FISCAUX DU NORD
143/81 Holdijk and Others [1982] ECR 1299, paragraph 6; and the orders in Saddik, paragraph 13, and Lahlou, paragraph 5, both cited above). It is the Court's duty to ensure that the opportunity to submit observations is assured, bearing in mind that, by virtue of the abovementioned provision, only the decisions making references are notified to the interested parties (see Holdijk and Others, paragraph 6; orders cited above in Saddik, paragraph 13, and Lahlou, paragraph 5).
9 In the main proceedings, it must be observed that, as the French Government and the Commission have pointed out in their written observations, the judgment making the reference contains no information from the national court which meets the requirements set out above, either as regards the factual or the legal situation in the case before it or as regards the grounds on which it considers it necessary to refer a question to the Court.
10 Thus, in the first place, the factual situation is not explained with sufficiënt preci- sion in the judgment making the reference. The national court does not say whether the vehicle of the claimant in the main proceedings, described as 'of no make', is of French manufacture or if it was manufactured in another Member State, purchased in France or in another Member State, directly imported from a third country into France or whether, on the other hand, it was put into free circulation in another Member State before being re-exported into France.
1 1 Such information is necessary for the purposes of determining whether Article 95 of the Treaty is to be applied to circumstances such as those in point in the main proceedings. O n the one hand, if the vehicle is of French manufacture and was purchased in France, the situation would be purely internal to a Member State and as such, under settled case-law, would not fall within the scope of Community law (see, in particular, Case 355/85 Driancourt v Cognet [1986] ECR 3231, paragraph 10). O n the other, if the vehicle was directly imported into France from a third country, Article 95 would not be applicable, according to settled case-law (see Case C-284/96 Tabouillot [1997] ECR 1-7471, paragraph 23, and the case-law cited above).
I - 2977
ORDER OF 11. 5. 1999 — CASE C-325/98
12 Secondly, the judgment making the reference does not explain the legal background to the dispute in the main proceedings.
1 3 The national court gives no indication as to the French system of motor vehicle taxation applied when calculating the tax for the vehicle belonging to the claimant in the main proceedings. It merely summarises the pleadings submitted to it by the parties to those proceedings and mentions in that regard various provisions of national law adopted as a result of judgments of the Court of Justice in which a particular aspect of a system such as the French system of motor-vehicle taxation was found to be contrary to Article 95 of the Treaty, without explaining whether they are relevant to the facts of the case before it.
1 4 Thirdly, in so far as the question referred for a preliminary ruling concerns essen- tially the evolution of the tax, it must be pointed out that, in Case C-113/94 Qasarin [1995] ECR I-4203, the Court has already ruled that Article 95 of the Treaty does not preclude the application of national rules on motor-vehicle taxation which pro- vide for an increase in the progression coefficient of the kind existing in the French system provided that such increase does not have the effect of favouring the sale of vehicles of domestic manufacture over the sale of vehicles imported from other Member States. However, in the present case, despite the fact that its attention was drawn to that judgment by one of the parties to the main proceedings, the national court has not set out the reasons for which it still considered it necessary to put those questions to the Court of Justice.
15 In those circumstances, it must be held, pursuant to Articles 92 and 103(1) of the Rules of Procedure, that the question referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible.
I - 2978
ANSSENS v DIRECTEUR DES SERVICES FISCAUX DU NORD
Costs
16 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
O n those grounds,
THE COURT
hereby orders:
The reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Lille, by judgment of 7 August 1998, is inadmissible.
Luxembourg, 11 May 1999.
R. Grass G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias
Registrar President
I - 2979