(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzamt Hamburg)

(Excise duties – Exemption from tax on mineral oils – Directive 92/81/EEC – Article 8(1)(c) – The term ‘navigation’)

Summary of the Judgment

Tax provisions – Harmonisation of laws – Structures of excise duties on mineral oils – Directive 92/81 – Exemption of fuel used for ‘navigation within Community waters (including fishing), other than in private pleasure craft’ – Meaning

(Council Directive 92/81, Art. 8(1)(c))

Article 8(1)(c) of Directive 92/81 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils, which provides for exemption from the harmonised excise duty of mineral oils supplied for use as fuel for ‘navigation within Community waters (including fishing), other than in private pleasure craft’, must be interpreted as meaning that that term includes all forms of navigation, irrespective of the purpose of the voyage, when that voyage is made for commercial purposes.

(see para. 29, operative part)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 1 April 2004(1)

(Excise duties – Exemption from tax on mineral oils – Directive 92/81/EEC – Article 8(1)(c) – The term ‘navigation’)

In Case C-389/02,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

Deutsche See-Bestattungs-Genossenschaft eG,

and

Hauptzollamt Kiel,

on the interpretation of Article 8(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 12),

THE COURT (First Chamber),

composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, A. La Pergola, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur) and K. Lenaerts, Judges,

Advocate General: M. Poiares Maduro, Registrar: R. Grass,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

– Deutsche See-Bestattungs-Genossenschaft eG, by M. Take, Rechtsanwalt,

– the Commission of the European Communities, by K. Gross, acting as Agent,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1), as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 (OJ 2014 L 124, p. 1) (‘Directive 2011/92’).

2 The request has been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Waltham Abbey Residents Association and, on the other hand, An Bord Pleanála (Planning Board, Ireland; ‘the Board’), Ireland and the Attorney General (Ireland), concerning authorisation granted by the Board for a strategic residential housing development.

Legal context

European Union law

Directive 2011/92

3 Recitals 7 to 9 of Directive 2011/92 state:

‘(7) Development consent for public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of those projects has been carried out. …

(8) Projects belonging to certain types have significant effects on the environment and those projects should, as a rule, be subject to a systematic assessment.

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

(9) Projects of other types may not have significant effects on the environment in every case and those projects should be assessed where the Member States consider that they are likely to have significant effects on the environment.’

4 Article 2(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects on the environment. Those projects are defined in Article 4.’

5 Under Article 3(1) of that directive:

‘The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case, the direct and indirect significant effects of a project on the following factors:

…

(b) biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under [Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 193) (“Directive 92/43”)] and Directive 2009/147/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7)];

…’

Article 4 of Directive 2011/92 provides:

‘1. Subject to Article 2(4), projects listed in Annex I shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

(a) a case-by-case examination;

(b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State.

Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in points (a) and (b).

Where a case-by-case examination is carried out or thresholds or criteria are set for the purpose of paragraph 2, the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III shall be taken into account. Member States may set thresholds or criteria to determine when projects need not undergo either the determination under paragraphs 4 and 5 or an environmental impact assessment, and/or thresholds or criteria to determine when projects shall in any case be made subject to an environmental impact assessment without undergoing a determination set out under paragraphs 4 and 5.

Where Member States decide to require a determination for projects listed in Annex II, the developer shall provide information on the characteristics of the project and its likely significant effects on the environment. The detailed list of information to be provided is specified in Annex IIA. The developer shall take into account, where relevant, the available results of other relevant assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The developer may also provide a description of any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

The competent authority shall make its determination, on the basis of the information provided by the developer in accordance with paragraph 4 taking into account, where relevant, the results of preliminary verifications or assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The determination shall made available to the public and:

(a) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is required, state the main reasons for requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III; or

(b) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is not required, state the main reasons for not requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III, and, where proposed by the developer, state any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

Member States shall ensure that the competent authority makes its determination as soon as possible and within a period of time not exceeding 90 days from the date on which the developer has submitted all the information required pursuant to paragraph 4. In exceptional cases, for instance relating to the nature, complexity, location or size of the project, the competent authority may extend that deadline to make its determination; in that event, the competent authority shall inform the developer in writing of the reasons justifying the extension and of the date when its determination is expected.’

Annex II.A of that directive contains the list of ‘information to be provided by the developer on the projects listed in Annex II’. That list reads as follows:

‘1. A description of the project, including in particular:

(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole project and, where relevant, of demolition works;

(b) a description of the location of the project, with particular regard to the environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected.

(a) the expected residues and emissions and the production of waste, where relevant;

(b) the use of natural resources, in particular soil, land, water and biodiversity.

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

JUDGMENT OF 6. 3. 2025 – CASE C-41/24 WALTHAM ABBEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

The criteria of Annex III shall be taken into account, where relevant, when compiling the information in accordance with points 1 to 3.’

Annex III to that directive sets out the ‘criteria to determine whether the projects listed in Annex II should be subject to an environmental impact assessment’.

Directive 2014/52

Recitals 11 and 29 of Directive 2014/52 state:

‘(11) The measures taken to avoid, prevent, reduce and, if possible, offset significant adverse effects on the environment, in particular on species and habitats protected under [Directive 92/43] and Directive 2009/147 …, should contribute to avoiding any deterioration in the quality of the environment and any net loss of biodiversity, in accordance with the [European] Union’s commitments in the context of the [United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, signed in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992,] and the objectives and actions of the Union Biodiversity Strategy up to 2020 laid down in the [Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions] of 3 May 2011 entitled ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’ [(COM(2011) 244 final)]

…

(29) When determining whether significant effects on the environment are likely to be caused by a project, the competent authorities should identify the most relevant criteria to be considered and should take into account information that could be available following other assessments required by Union legislation in order to apply the screening procedure effectively and transparently. In this regard, it is appropriate to specify the content of the screening determination, in particular where no environmental impact assessment is required. Moreover, taking into account unsolicited comments that might have been received from other sources, such as members of the public or public authorities, even though no formal consultation is required at the screening stage, constitutes good administrative practice.’

Directive 92/43

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 provides:

‘Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.’

Article 12(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) in their natural range, prohibiting:

(a) all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species in the wild;

(b) deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration;

(c) deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild;

(d) deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.’

Point (a) of Annex IV to that directive mentions ‘all species’ of bats belonging to the suborder of ‘microchiroptera’.

Irish law

An independent interpretation of those exemptions is all the more essential because, as the Court held in Case C-346/97 <i>Braathens</i> [1999] ECR I‑3419, paragraph 31, Article 8(1) of Directive 92/81 imposes on the Member States the obligation not to levy the harmonised excise duty on mineral oils supplied for use as fuel for a number of activities set out in that provision.

21

Any divergent interpretation at national level of those exemption obligations would not only undermine the objectives of the Community legislation and legal certainty, but could introduce unequal treatment between the economic operators concerned.

22

It is apparent from the first paragraph of Article 8(1)(c) that ‘mineral oils supplied for use as fuel for the purposes of navigation within Community waters’ are exempt from the harmonised excise duty. That provision provides for a sole exception, stating that the exemption does not apply to mineral oils used for the purposes of navigation ‘in private pleasure craft’. The second paragraph of that provision defines the term ‘private pleasure craft’ as craft used ‘for other than commercial purposes’.

23

It therefore follows that all navigation activity for commercial purposes comes within the scope of the exemption from the harmonised excise duty provided for in the first paragraph of Article 8(1)(c) of Directive 92/81.

24

Moreover, that interpretation is borne out by the wish of the Community legislature to define with care the meaning of private pleasure craft in the second paragraph of Article 8(1)(c) of Directive 92/81 and to make clear at the same time the scope of that term in relation to the use of vessels for the supply of services for consideration.

25

It should be noted in this respect that Article 8(1)(c) of the directive does not make any distinction as to the purpose of the navigation referred to. The distortions of competition which the provisions of the directive are intended to avoid can arise whatever the type of commercial navigation at issue.

26

It is important to add that, if, in addition to navigation in private pleasure craft, the Community legislature had not intended certain types of commercial navigation to enjoy the exemption, it would have been necessary to set out such a limitation expressly in the first paragraph of Article 8(1)(c) of Directive 92/81.

27

Having regard to those points, it should be noted that the parenthesis ‘including fishing’ in that paragraph must be considered to be a simple clarification concerning the purpose of the exemption laid down for commercial navigation.

28

As regards the case in the main proceedings, it is not disputed that the navigation activity carried out by Deutsche See constitutes a supply of services for consideration. Because of its commercial nature, that navigation activity does not fall within the exception laid down for private pleasure craft with the result that it is covered by the exemption.

29

In those circumstances, the answer to the question referred must therefore be that Article 8(1)(c) of Directive 92/81 should be interpreted to mean that the term ‘navigation within Community waters (including fishing), other than in private pleasure craft’ includes all forms of navigation, irrespective of the purpose of the voyage, when it is made for commercial purposes.

Costs

30

The costs incurred by the Commission, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds,

THE COURT (First Chamber),

in answer to the question referred to it by the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of 16 October 2002, hereby rules:

Article 8(1)(c) of Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils should be interpreted to mean that the term ‘navigation within Community waters (including fishing), other than in private pleasure craft’ includes all forms of navigation, irrespective of the purpose of the voyage, when that voyage is made for commercial purposes.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 1 April 2004.

Registrar

President of the First Chamber

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

Language of the case: German.