Luxembourg, 20/07/2004 (Agence Europe) - The Finnish tax on vehicles, the autovero, is a specific tax on the sue of goods on Finnish territory, has been confirmed in the Court of Justice's Lindfors ruling. It has therefore been excluded from the field of application of the European directive of 1983, which included tax free facilities on definitive imports of particular goods from other Member States, it explains, rejecting the Finnish thesis of Marie Lindfors from Finland, who refused to pay it.
Lindfors permanently returned to Finland in 1999 with a car registered in the Netherlands but which had been bought in Germany. The customs office in the town of Hanko asked her to pay an autovero of 20,000 Finnish marks (around EUR 3400). Legal proceedings sent her to the Korkein-Hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court), which sought the Court of Justice's opinion on when the autovero should be paid on an imported vehicle from another Member State in the context of a change of residency which was compatible with European law.
The Court ruled that the autovero was not a tax linked to importing the vehicle because the tax is generated by the use of a vehicle on Finnish territory, which is not necessarily linked to imports. It also said that the autovero was required due to the use of a vehicle in Finland and therefore the 1983 Directive on tax exemptions does not apply.
European judges indicated that the EC treaty does not guarantee Union citizens Member States being neutral in tax matters when they transfer to another Member State. Such a transfer can be to the citizen's advantage or disadvantage. A possible disadvantage compared to a previous situation in another Member State is not contrary to the treaty, they explain.
The Finnish government stated that the autovero was just a tax linked to the use of the vehicle. It explained to the judges that if the vehicle had not been used in Finland and exhibited in a museum for example, the tax would not have applied.
The Commission said that the tax had already been applied to the vehicle's registration and its use in the Member State of origin. Free movement would be compromised if the Member State of destination imposed another tax on this basis. I would have liked the Court to interpret the provisions in Directive 83/183 on tax exemptions in light of fundamental law on free movement contained in Article 18 EC in favour of Union citizens.