Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 22 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Bucureşti – Romania) – Quadrant Amroq Beverages SRL v Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală – Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Case C-332/21) ¹

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Harmonisation of fiscal legislation – Directive 92/83/EEC – Harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages – Excise duty – Ethyl alcohol – Exemptions – Article 27(1)(e) – Production of flavours for the preparation of foodstuffs and non-alcoholic beverages with an alcohol strength not exceeding 1.2% volume – Scope – Principles of proportionality and effectiveness)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Bucureşti

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Quadrant Amroq Beverages SRL

Defendant: Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală – Direcția Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

Operative part of the judgment

Article 27(1)(e) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages

must be interpreted as meaning that both ethyl alcohol used for the production of flavours intended, in turn, for the preparation of non-alcoholic beverages with an alcohol strength not exceeding 1.2% volume and ethyl alcohol which has already been used for the production of such flavours are covered by the exemption provided for in that provision.

Article 27(1)(e) of Directive 92/83

must be interpreted as meaning that, once ethyl alcohol that has been released for consumption in a Member State in which it is exempt from excise duty, on the ground that it has been used for the production of flavours intended for the preparation of non-alcoholic beverages with an alcoholic strength not exceeding 1.2% volume, is subsequently marketed in another Member State, the latter is required to treat that ethyl alcohol in an identical manner within its territory, since the first Member State applied correctly the exemption provided for in that provision and there is no evidence of evasion, avoidance or abuse.

Article 27(1)(e) of Directive 92/83

must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes the grant, to an economic operator marketing within its territory goods purchased from a seller located in the territory of another Member State in which they were manufactured, released for consumption and exempted from excise duty in accordance with that provision, of the benefit of that exemption provided for in that provision subject to the conditions that that operator has the status of registered consignee and that that seller has the status of authorised warehousekeeper, unless it follows from concrete, objective and verifiable evidence that those conditions are necessary to ensure the correct and straightforward application of such an exemption and to prevent any evasion, avoidance or abuse.

____________

¹ OJ C 357, 6.9.2021.