Joined Cases C‑497/15 and C‑498/15
Euro-Team Kft.andSpirál-Gép Kft.
v
Budapest Rendőrfőkapitánya
(Request for a preliminary rulingfrom the Szegedi Közigazgatási és Kunkaügyi Bíróság)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling— Approximation of laws— Road transport— Tax provisions— Directive 1999/62/EC— Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures— Toll— Member States’ obligation to establish effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties— Flat-rate fine— Proportionality)
Summary— Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 22March 2017
1.Transport— Road transport— Tax provisions— Harmonisation of laws – Directive 1999/62 – Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures –Member States’ obligation to establish effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties— Scope – Imposition of a flat-rate fine for infringements, irrespective of their nature and seriousness— Not permissible— Breach of principle of proportionality
(European Parliament and Council Directive 1999/62, Art.9a)
2.Transport— Road transport— Tax provisions— Harmonisation of laws – Directive 1999/62 – Charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures –Member States’ obligation to establish effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties— Scope – System of penalties instituting strict liability of offenders— Lawfulness— No breach of principle of proportionality—
(European Parliament and Council Directive 1999/62, Art.9a)
1.Article9a of Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures, as amended by Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27September 2011, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement set out therein of proportionality of the penalties which it covers precludes a system of penalties, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the imposition of a flat-rate fine for all offences, whatever their nature and seriousness, under the rules on the obligation to make prior payment of the toll for use of a road infrastructure.
In the context of Directive 1999/62, the objectives pursued are, as is apparent from the first recital thereof, both the harmonisation of levy systems and the establishment of fair mechanisms for charging infrastructure costs to hauliers in order to eliminate distortions of competition between transport undertakings in the Member States.
In that context, the Court has held that the severity of penalties must be commensurate with the seriousness of the infringements for which they are imposed, in particular by ensuring a genuinely deterrent effect, while respecting the general principle of proportionality (judgment of 19October 2016, EL-EM-2001, C‑501/14, EU:C:2016:777, paragraph40).
Furthermore, the Court has held that Member States are required to comply with the principle of proportionality not only as regards the determination of factors constituting an infringement and the determination of the rules concerning the severity of fines, but also as regards the assessment of the factors which may be taken into account in the fixing of a fine (judgment of 19October 2016, EL-EM-2001, C‑501/14, EU:C:2016:777, paragraph41).
(see paras41-43, 50, operative part1)
2.Article9a of Directive 1999/62, as amended by Directive 2011/76, must be interpreted as meaning that the requirement of proportionality referred to therein does not preclude a system of penalties, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which institutes strict liability.
(see para.66, operative part2)