VATupdate
VAT

Share this post on

ECJ Case C-103/17 (Messer France) – Judgment – Taxation of energy products and electricity

Judgment of 25 July 2018 in Case C‑103/17 – Messer France SAS, formerly Praxair

Facts:

  • Praxair, predecessor in law to Messer France, submitted a claim for repayment of the CSPE (specific excise tax on energy) it had paid in respect of the years 2005 to 2009.
  • The company claims, in particular, that this indirect tax is contrary to Article 3(2) of Directive 92/12 in so far as it does not serve a specific purpose, within the meaning of that provision.
  • The question raised is if a Member State can levy excise duties on the consumption of electricity, on the basis of a previously created indirect tax on such consumption, in addition to local taxes.

The ECJ rules that:

1. The second subparagraph of Article 18(10) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity must be interpreted as meaning that, until 1 January 2009, compliance with the minimum rates of taxation laid down in that directive was, in the context of rules on the taxation of electricity laid down by EU law, the only obligation incumbent on the French Republic.

2. Article 3(2) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that levying another indirect tax on electricity is not conditional on the imposition of a harmonised excise duty and that, since a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings does not constitute such an excise duty, its compatibility with Directives 92/12 and 2003/96 must be assessed in the light of the conditions laid down in Article 3(2) of Directive 92/12 for determining the existence of other indirect taxes for specific purposes.

3. Article 3(2) of Directive 92/12 must be interpreted as meaning that a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings may be classified as ‘another indirect tax’ as regards its environmental objective, which is intended to finance additional costs resulting from the obligation to purchase green energy, but not as regards its objectives of territorial and social cohesion, such as the geographical price-balancing mechanism and the reduction in the price of electricity for low-income households, or as regards its purely administrative objectives, including the financing of costs inherent in the administrative operations of public authorities or institutions such as the médiateur national de l’énergie and the Caisse des dépôts et consignations, subject to verification by the referring court of compliance with the tax rules applicable for excise duty purposes.

4. EU law must be interpreted as meaning that the taxable persons concerned are entitled to partial reimbursement of a tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings in the proportion in which revenue raised from that tax was allocated to non-specific objectives, provided that that tax was not directly passed on by the taxable persons to their own customers, which is a matter to be determined by the referring court.

Source: Curia

Sponsors:

VAT news
VAT news

Advertisements:

  • vatcomsult