17.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/6

(Case C-65/16)

(2016/C 175/05)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Istanbul Lojistik Ltd

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatóság

Questions referred

1.Must Article 4 of Decision No 1/95 of the [EC]-Turkey Association Council be interpreted as meaning that a tax such as that governed by the Hungarian Law on motor vehicle tax, which, in accordance with that Law, is levied on a goods vehicle with a Turkish registration number operated by a Turkish haulier and used for the carriage of goods, by reason of the fact that it crosses the Hungarian border in order to arrive at another Member State — starting from Turkey and passing through Hungary as the transit Member State — constitutes a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty and is not, therefore, compatible with Article 4 of that decision?

2.If the answer to the first question is no, must Article 5 of Decision No 1/95 of the [EC]-Turkey Association Council be interpreted as meaning that a tax such as that governed by the Hungarian Law on motor vehicle tax, which, in accordance with that Law, is levied on a goods vehicle with a Turkish registration number operated by a Turkish haulier and used for the carriage of goods, by reason of the fact that it crosses the Hungarian border in order to arrive at another Member State — starting from Turkey and passing through Hungary as the transit Member State — constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction and is not, therefore, compatible with Article 5 of that decision?

(a)Must Article 7 of Decision No 1/95 of the [EC]-Turkey Association Council be interpreted as meaning that it is permissible, on road safety grounds and the grounds for applying laws, for a tax such as that governed by the Hungarian Law on motor vehicle tax, which, in accordance with that Law, is levied on a goods vehicle with a Turkish registration number operated by a Turkish haulier and used for the carriage of goods, to be applied, by reason of the fact that it crosses the Hungarian border in order to arrive at another Member State, starting from Turkey and passing through Hungary as the transit Member State?

3.Must Article 3(2) TFEU and Article 1(2) and (3)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 be interpreted as precluding, on the basis of a bilateral transport agreement concluded with Turkey, the Member State of transit from applying a tax such as that governed by the Hungarian Law on motor vehicle tax, which, in accordance with that Law, is levied on a goods vehicle with a Turkish registration number operated by a Turkish haulier and used for the carriage of goods, by reason of the fact that it crosses the Hungarian border in order to arrive at another Member State, starting from Turkey and passing through Hungary as the transit Member State?

4.Must Article 9 of the [EC]-Turkey Association Agreement between the [EEC] and Turkey be interpreted as meaning that a tax such as that governed by the Hungarian Law on motor vehicle tax, which, in accordance with that Law, is levied on a goods vehicle with a Turkish registration number operated by a Turkish haulier and used for the carriage of goods, by reason of the fact that it crosses the Hungarian border in order to arrive at another Member State — starting from Turkey and passing through Hungary as the transit Member State — entails discrimination on grounds of nationality and is not, therefore, compatible with Article 9 of that agreement?

*

Regulation (EC) No 1072/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 on common rules for access to the international road haulage market (OJ 2009 L 300, p. 72).