Case C‑663/11

Scandic Distilleries SA

v

Direcţia Generală de Administrare a Marilor Contribuabili

(Request for a preliminary ruling
from the Curtea de Apel Oradea)

(Request for a preliminary ruling — Directive 92/12/EEC — Excise duties — Products released for consumption in a Member State where the excise duty was paid — Same products transported to another Member State where the excise duty has also been paid — Request for reimbursement of the excise duty paid in the first Member State — Refusal for not introducing the request before the goods were dispatched — Compatibility with EU law)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 30 May 2013

Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Excise duties — Directive 92/12 — Request for reimbursement of the excise duty paid in the Member State of departure for products released for consumption in another Member State — Refusal of the request due to it being lodged after those goods were dispatched — Not permissible — Conditions

(Council Directive 92/12, Art. 22(1) to (3))

Article 22(1) to (3) 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 92/108, must be interpreted as meaning that, when products, which are subject to excise duty that has been paid and which have been released for consumption in one Member State, are transported to another Member State where those products are subject to excise duty, which has also been paid, a request for reimbursement of the excise duty paid in the Member State of departure may not be refused on the sole ground that that request was not made before those goods were dispatched, but must be assessed on the basis of Article 22(3) of Directive 92/12. By contrast, if the excise duty has not been paid in the Member State of destination such a request may be refused on the basis of Article 22(1) and (2) of the directive.

Article 22(3) of Directive 92/12 imposes no obligation as to when the request for reimbursement must be lodged. In addition, the goods are not subject to the obligation to circulate under suspension arrangements, but only to the obligation to be accompanied by a document referred to in Article 7(4) of that directive.

In that regard, the proviso according to which a Member State may refuse a request for reimbursement where it does not satisfy the correctness criteria that the Member State lays down cannot apply in cases where the request for reimbursement has not been lodged before the goods concerned have been dispatched. The concept of ‘correctness criteria’ may not be interpreted in such a way which would allow for the imposition of a condition laid down by Directive 92/12 solely in relation to a different request for reimbursement scenario and which would therefore contravene the first subparagraph of Article 22(3) of that directive.

(see paras 29, 36, 39, operative part)