644
1) Article 2, paragraph 3, second subparagraph of 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 as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue, imposing excise duty on additives in the 3811 code of the Combined Nomenclature in Annex I to Regulation (EEC) No 2658 / 87 of the Council of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1031/2008 of 19 September 2008, to another rate as applied to fuel with which they are added.
2) Article 2, paragraph 3, second subparagraph of Directive 2003/96 must be interpreted as meaning that it can be invoked by individuals against the competent national authority as part of a litigation before national courts in order to avoid the application of national legislation which is incompatible with that provision.
553
On those grounds, the Court (Second Chamber) hereby rules:
Article 27, paragraph 1 f) of Directive 92/83 / EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main subordinating the application of the exemption from the harmonized excise duty under that provision provided that the operator concerned has a decision of the tax administration setting maximum use of products exempt under that provision.
549
On those grounds, the Court (Seventh Chamber) hereby rules:
1) Article 213, paragraph 1 of Directive 2006/112 / EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, must be interpreted as meaning that it opposed no national legislation to impose on a taxable person to declare the beginning of an economic activity when the proceeds of this activity does not exceed the deductible limit for small businesses and the taxable person does not intend to exercise a taxable activity .
2) The EU law should be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude an administrative fine imposed for failure to comply by a taxable person from the obligation to declare the beginning of an economic activity when the product of this activity does not exceed the deductible limit for small businesses. It is for the national court to assess whether, in the main proceedings, the penalty imposed is consistent with the principle of proportionality.
566
Article 2, paragraph 4 b) of Directive 2003/96 / EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity, as amended by Directive 2004 / 75 / EC of 29 April 2004, must be interpreted as meaning that the natural gas used, first, for overheating and dry steam that is then used in the production process of the ammonia and, secondly, for thermal decomposition and disposal of waste gas from this process is not within the meaning of that provision, an energy product that dual-use is excluded from the application of the field Directive. Accordingly, Member States may grant a tax exemption in respect of the use of such energy product to the extent that such exemption is in accordance with the obligations laid down by Directive 2003/96, as amended by Directive 2004 / 75.
566
On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby rules:
1) Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude a Member State from establishing a tax on motor vehicles, such as that provided by Law No. 9/2012, the January 6, 2012, concerning the tax on polluting emissions from motor vehicles (Legea nr. 9/2012 privind taxa pentru emisiile poluante provenite of autovehicule), which hits imported used vehicles on their first registration in that Member State and vehicles already registered in that Member State during the first transcript in the same State of the property right on them.
2) Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a Member State exempts from tax, such as that provided by Law No. 9/2012, the vehicles already registered for where a fee was paid previously in force, when the residual amount of that tax incorporated in the value of these vehicles is lower than the amount of the new tax. This is necessarily the case where the earlier tax should be reimbursed with interest because of its incompatibility with EU law.