G. van de Water v Staatssecretaris van Financiën.

JurisdictionEuropean Union
Date05 April 2001
CourtCourt of Justice (European Union)
EUR-Lex - 61999J0325 - EN 61999J0325

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 April 2001. - G. van de Water v Staatssecretaris van Financiën. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Hoge Raad der Nederlanden - Netherlands. - Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Excise duties - Directive 92/12/EEC - Chargeability of duty - Release for consumption of products subject to excise duty - Notion - Mere holding of a product subject to excise duty. - Case C-325/99.

European Court reports 2001 Page I-02729


Summary
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part

Keywords

Tax provisions - Harmonisation of laws - Excise duty - Directive 92/12 - Chargeability of duty - Release for consumption of products subject to excise duty - Notion - Mere holding of a product subject to excise duty - Inclusion - Conditions

(Council Directive 92/12, Art. 6(1))

Summary

$$Article 6(1) of Directive 92/12 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, as amended by Directive 94/74, must be interpreted as meaning that the mere holding of a product subject to excise duty within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that directive constitutes a release for consumption where that product is held outside a suspension arrangement and duty has not yet been levied on it pursuant to the applicable provisions of Community law and national legislation.

( see paras 36, 42 and operative part )

Parties

In Case C-325/99,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

G. van de Water

and

Staatssecretaris van Financiën,

on the interpretation of Article 6(1) of 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 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 46),

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),

composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges,

Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,

Registrar: R. Grass,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

- the Netherlands Government, by M.A. Fierstra, acting as Agent,

- the Commission of the European Communities, by E. Traversa and H.M.H. Speyart, acting as Agents,

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 9 November 2000,

gives the following

Judgment

Grounds

1 By judgment of 24 August 1999, received at the Court on 31 August 1999, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC a question concerning the interpretation of Article 6(1) of 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 94/74/EC of 22 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 365, p. 46, hereinafter the Directive).

2 That question has arisen in proceedings between Mr Van de Water and the Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Netherlands Secretary of State for Finance) concerning an additional assessment to excise duty.

The Community legal framework

3 The Directive is designed to establish the rules governing the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, which the Member States have been required to implement since 1 January 1993.

4 According to the fourth recital in the preamble to the Directive, in order to ensure the establishment and functioning of the internal market, the chargeability of excise duties should be identical in all the Member States.

5 The ninth recital in the preamble to the Directive states that, in order to ensure that the tax debt is eventually collected, it should be possible for checks to be carried out in production and storage facilities and that a system of warehouses, subject to authorisation by the competent authorities, should make it possible to carry out such checks.

6 Article 3(1) of the Directive provides:

This Directive shall apply at Community level to the following products as defined in the relevant Directives:

...

- alcohol and alcoholic beverages,

...

7 According to Article 4(b) of the Directive, the term tax warehouse means a place where goods subject to excise duty are produced, processed, held...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Opinion of Advocate General Pikamäe delivered on 8 June 2023.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 8 June 2023
    ...del considerando 8 y del artículo 9, párrafo primero, véanse los artículos 33 y 36 de la Directiva. 8 Sentencia de 5 de abril de 2001 (C‑325/99, EU:C:2001:201), apartado 9 Véase, en particular, la sentencia de 8 de febrero de 2018, Comisión/Grecia (C‑590/16, EU:C:2018:77), apartado 56, segú......
  • Georgios Alevizos v Ypourgos Oikonomikon.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 26 April 2007
    ...the fourth recital in the preamble to Directive 92/12; see also Case C‑296/95 EMU Tabac and Others [1998] ECR I‑1605, paragraph 22; Case C‑325/99 Van de Water [2001] ECR I‑2729, paragraph 39; and Case C‑240/01 Commission v Germany [2004] ECR I‑4733, paragraph 36) – makes it possible to avoi......
  • Repertoire Culinaire Ltd v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 15 July 2010
    ...las sentencias de 2 de abril de 1998, EMU Tabac y otros (C‑296/95, Rec. p. I‑1605), apartado 22; de 5 de abril de 2001, Van de Water (C‑325/99, Rec. p. I‑2729), apartado 39, y Joustra, citada en la nota 52, apartado 27. 55 – Primer considerando de la Directiva 92/12 y tercer considerando de......
  • Georgios Alevizos v Ypourgos Oikonomikon.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 25 January 2007
    ...in the preamble to Directive 92/12. 28 – On this latter point, see Case C-296/95 EMU Tabac and Others [1998] ECR I‑1605, paragraph 22; Case C-325/99 Van de Water [2001] ECR I-2729, paragraph 39; Case C-395/00 Cipriani [2002] ECR I-11877, paragraph 41; and Case C-5/05 Joustra [2006] ECR I‑00......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Opinion of Advocate General Pikamäe delivered on 8 June 2023.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 8 June 2023
    ...del considerando 8 y del artículo 9, párrafo primero, véanse los artículos 33 y 36 de la Directiva. 8 Sentencia de 5 de abril de 2001 (C‑325/99, EU:C:2001:201), apartado 9 Véase, en particular, la sentencia de 8 de febrero de 2018, Comisión/Grecia (C‑590/16, EU:C:2018:77), apartado 56, segú......
  • Georgios Alevizos v Ypourgos Oikonomikon.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 26 April 2007
    ...the fourth recital in the preamble to Directive 92/12; see also Case C‑296/95 EMU Tabac and Others [1998] ECR I‑1605, paragraph 22; Case C‑325/99 Van de Water [2001] ECR I‑2729, paragraph 39; and Case C‑240/01 Commission v Germany [2004] ECR I‑4733, paragraph 36) – makes it possible to avoi......
  • Repertoire Culinaire Ltd v The Commissioners of Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 15 July 2010
    ...las sentencias de 2 de abril de 1998, EMU Tabac y otros (C‑296/95, Rec. p. I‑1605), apartado 22; de 5 de abril de 2001, Van de Water (C‑325/99, Rec. p. I‑2729), apartado 39, y Joustra, citada en la nota 52, apartado 27. 55 – Primer considerando de la Directiva 92/12 y tercer considerando de......
  • Georgios Alevizos v Ypourgos Oikonomikon.
    • European Union
    • Court of Justice (European Union)
    • 25 January 2007
    ...in the preamble to Directive 92/12. 28 – On this latter point, see Case C-296/95 EMU Tabac and Others [1998] ECR I‑1605, paragraph 22; Case C-325/99 Van de Water [2001] ECR I-2729, paragraph 39; Case C-395/00 Cipriani [2002] ECR I-11877, paragraph 41; and Case C-5/05 Joustra [2006] ECR I‑00......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT