Registration tax on leased or rented vehicles by Greek residents from suppliers established in another Member State

Judgment
C-66/15
14.01.2016
PartiesJurisdictionFormationJudge RapporteurAdvocate GeneralSubject-matter
Action for failure to fulfil obligationsEuropean Commission
v
Hellenic Republic
CJUE10th Ch.M.E. Levitis M. M. BobekFreedom to provide service
KeywordsPublic measures concerning the Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Restriction to the freedom to provide services – Articles 56 to 62 TFUE - Leasing or renting of a vehicle by a resident of a Member State from a supplier established in another Member State – Imposition of the whole registration tax
Significant pointsBy collecting the full amount of a registration tax foreseen by its national legislation and payable by a supplier established in another Member State on vehicles which are rented or leased to a client residing in its national territory and by doing so without taking into account the duration of the rental contract or lease contract and the duration of the use of the vehicle in the national territory, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 – 62 TFEU.

The Court observes that the registration tax at issue applies to leased or rented vehicles that are not destined to be used on a permanent basis in the Member State. Moreover, the rental or leasing undertakings established in another Member State are liable to pay such a tax.

The imposition of the whole tax, which is calculated without taking into consideration the duration of the renting or leasing agreement for that vehicle or the length of time that that vehicle will be used in the national territory, could therefore disadvantage a vehicle leasing or renting undertaking established in another Member State in terms of the depreciation of such a tax, potentially dissuading it from providing its services.

In this respect, the Court states that the Greek legislation is such that it could discourage Greek residents to rent or lease a vehicle from an undertaking established in another Member State, insofar as it makes these operations more expensive; it consequently violates Article 56 TFUE by creating a restriction to freedom to provide services.
NoteworthyThe Court follows its well-established case law on the matter at issue, e.g. the judgment in Cura Anlagen (C-451/99) and orders van de Coevering (C-242/05) and Ilhan (C-42/08).
The Court also repeats that national registration tax rules are subject to the respect of the principle of proportionality and that this principle is violated, like in the case at hand, by imposing the entirety of such a tax on vehicles temporarily present in the Member State.

Tender specifications cannot oblige the tenderer to establish links of a specific legal nature with its subcontractors before the contract is awarded

Judgment
C-234/14
14.01.2016
PartiesJurisdictionFormationJudge RapporteurAdvocate GeneralSubject-matter
Reference for a preliminary rulingOstas celtnieks SIA

v.

Talsu novada pašvaldība

and

Iepirkumu uzraudzības birojs
CJUE1st Ch.A.TizzanoM. WatheletPublic procurement
KeywordsReference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement contracts — Directive 2004/18/EC —Articles 47(2) and 48(3) — Tender specifications laying down the obligation for a tenderer to conclude a cooperation agreement or to set up a partnership with the entities on whose capacities it relies
Significant pointsArticles 47(2) and 48(3) of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that they preclude a contracting authority, in the tender specifications relating to the award of a public contract, from imposing on a tenderer which relies on the capacities of other entities the obligation, before the contract is awarded, to conclude a cooperation agreement with those entities or to form a partnership with them.
Preliminarily, the Court recalls that according to its own case-law Articles 47(2) and 48(3) of Directive 2004/18 recognise the right of every economic operator to rely, for a particular contract, upon the capacities of other entities (subcontractors), “regardless of the nature of the links which it has with them”, provided that it proves to the contracting authority that it will have at its disposal the means and resources necessary for the execution of the contract, including those of the subcontractors which it does not itself own .
It is then for the contracting authority to assess if the tenderer complies with the conditions foreseen in the contact notice by referring to the criteria set out by Directive 2004/18.
In this context, Articles 47(2) and 48(3) do not permit to exclude certain types of proof nor to assume, prior to the suitability assessment carried out by the contracting authority, that the tenderer has or has not the means necessary to perform the contract.
It follows that the tenderer is free to choose both the legal nature of the links it intends to establish with its subcontractors and the type of proof of the existence of those links.
Therefore, by obliging the tenderer to establish links of a specific legal nature with the subcontractors before the contract is awarded, namely a cooperation agreement or a partnership, the tender specifications limit the methods by which the tenderer may prove that it has the resources necessary for the execution of the contract, manifestly depriving provisions of Articles 47(2) and 48(3) of Directive 2004/08 of their effectiveness.
Noteworthy/