The complaint to the European Commission

1. On 17 April 2018, the complainant submitted an infringement complaint^[1] to the European Commission concerning a method of calculation of the special tax on certain road vehicles in Croatia^[2], which, according to the complainant, violates Article 30 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)^[3].

2. On 9 April 2019, the Commission sent to the complainant a pre-closure letter in which it provided to the complainant an explanation why Croatia has not breached the EU law.

3. The Commission stated that it examined the Croatian tax within the application of Articles 28 and 30 of TFEU. It stated that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) clarified that “a tax levied by a Member States on the registration of motor vehicles in its territory for the purpose of being placed in circulation is neither a customs duty not a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty”.^[4] It concluded that, in line with Article 30 of TFEU, Croatia is in principle free to apply the domestic taxation to motor vehicles produced in Croatia and transferred from another Member State, as well as to new and second-hand motor vehicles.

4. It then examined the Croatian tax with the reference to Article 110 of TFEU. It stated that, according to the CJEU findings^[5], when a tax is charged in relation to a motor vehicle’s registration in a Member State’s territory and is therefore applicable to both used and new motor vehicles, “the amount of the tax levied on a used motor vehicles must not exceed the residual tax incorporated in the value of a similar second-hand vehicle registered on the domestic market as new”. It noted that although the Croatian authorities did not set a legally binding depreciation scale, in practise they base their calculation of the registration tax on a publicly available depreciation scale catalogue^[6], “which reflects realistic depreciation of motor vehicles, incorporating the residual tax”. According to the Commission, the depreciation scale is equally applicable to motor vehicles coming from other Member States as it is to domestic ones. The Commission, therefore, concluded that it has not established a violation of Article 110 of TFEU.  

5. In addition, the Commission noted that the taxation of motor vehicles has not been harmonised at the EU level, which means that there is no EU rule that imposes an obligation on a Member State to abolish the registration tax on new and second-hand motor vehicles registered for the first time in a Member State’s territory. Therefore, Croatia is free to impose taxes in question and to decide on their level and modalities, so far as there is no discriminatory treatment of motor vehicles coming from other Member States and those that are domestic.

6. Based on that, the Commission concluded that its investigation did not find any indication that Croatian law and/or practise is contrary to the EU laws. It informed the complainant that unless he provides the Commission with further information proving an infringement of EU law within one month from the receipt of its letter, it will close his case.

7. On 13 April 2019, the complainant sent to the Commission additional information.  He made a “simulation” of a special tax on motor vehicles. In its reply, the Commission repeated its finding that the Croatian tax is not considered as a customs duty and stated that he based his calculation on incorrect figures.

8. On 19 and 21 June 2019, the complainant reiterated the stimulation. On 16 July 2019, the Commission replied that his infringement complaint had been closed. It stated that it may stop replying to him as the content of his letters is repetitive and pointless.  The complainant was not satisfied with the Commission’s replies and therefore turned to the Ombudsman on 16 July 2019 arguing that the Commission’s decision to stop the correspondence with him was unjustified. The complainant considered that the Commission should have provided him with additional clarifications.

The European Ombudsman's finding

9. The Ombudsman notes that according to Article 14(3) of the European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, “no acknowledgement of receipt and no reply need be sent in cases where letters or complaints are abusive because of their excessive number or because of their repetitive or pointless character”.^[7]

10. The Ombudsman finds that the Commission provided reasonable and thorough replies to the complainant’s infringement complaint. The complainant’s subsequent letters to the Commission did not bring any new elements which could justify the change in the Commission’s stance. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission was right to state that the complainant’s case is closed and that it may decide not to reply to the complainant’s further correspondence which it considers repetitive or pointless.

11. Based on the information provided by the complainant, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in this case.^[8]

 

Marta Hirsch-Ziembińska

Head of Inquiries and ICT - Unit 1

Strasbourg, 07/08/2019

 

[1] Registered under the reference number CHAP (2018) 1312.

[2] “Uredba o načinu izračuna i visinama sastavnica za izračun posebnog poreza na motorna vozila“.

[3] Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, available at the following link: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012E%2FTXT.

[4] Judgment of the Court of 1 June 2006, De Danske Bilimportører v Skatteministeriet, C-98/05, ECLI:EU:C:2006:363 and Judgment of the Court of 22 December 2010, European Commission v Republic of Austria, C-433/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:817.

[5] Judgment of the Court of 5 October 2006, Ákos Nádasdi v Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Észak-Alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága (C-290/05) and Ilona Németh v Vám- és Pénzügyőrség Dél-Alföldi Regionális Parancsnoksága (C-333/05), Joined cases C-290/05 and C-333/05, ECLI:EU:C:2006:652.

[6]“Katalog orijentacijskih vrijednosti rabljenih motornih vozila”.

[7] The European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour, available at the following link: https://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/en/publication/en/3510. 

[8] This complaint has been dealt with under delegated case handling, in accordance with Article 11 of the Decision of the European Ombudsman adopting Implementing Provisions