8.9.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/26

(Case C-306/14)

2014/C 303/33

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: Direktor na Agentsia ‘Mitnitsi’

Respondent in the appeal in cassation: Biovet AD

Questions referred

1.What is the meaning of the term ‘manufacturing process’ in Article 27(2)(d) of Council Directive 92/83/EEC (1) of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, and does that term include cleaning and/or disinfection as processes for achieving specific degrees of cleanliness which are prescribed by good practice in the manufacture of medicinal products?

2.Does Article 27(2)(d) of Directive 92/83 permit the enactment of a legal provision under which, after the Member States have introduced legislation exempting alcohol from harmonised excise duty on condition that the alcohol is used in a manufacturing process and that the end product does not contain any alcohol, alcohol used for cleaning is deemed, for the purposes of the application of that exemption, not to have been used in a manufacturing process?

3.Having regard to the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, is it permissible for a deeming provision such as that in Article 22(7) ZADS (Bulgarian Law on excise duties and tax warehouses) to be enacted with immediate effect (that is to say, without providing any reasonable period for market participants to adjust their behaviour) if it restricts refunds of excise duty on alcohol used as a cleaning material in the case where the exemption from excise duty has been enacted by the Member State within the scope of its discretion?

(1) OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21.