.png)
.png)
Hoves, a Luxembourg company, was a national and international carrier of goods and paid tax in Luxembourg in respect of its vehicles for which it was issued cabotage authorisations. Eight of its drivers were resident in Germany. The German Finanzamt Borken assessed motor vehicle tax for Hoves.
Hoves, a Luxembourg company, was a national and international carrier of goods and paid tax in Luxembourg in respect of its vehicles for which it was issued cabotage authorisations. Eight of its drivers were resident in Germany. The German Finanzamt Borken assessed motor vehicle tax for Hoves.
Hoves challenged this decision, and the Finance Court, Münster referred the following question to the Court of Justice of the European Communities: did Article 6 of Regulation 3118/93 or Article 5 of Directive 93/89 preclude national provisions of a host Member State which levied vehicle duty in respect of transport of goods by road on the ground that those vehicles had their regular base in the territory of that host Member State, even though they were registered in the Member State of establishment and were used in the host Member State for cabotage by road, in accordance with authorisations lawfully issued by the Member State of establishment.
The European Court of Justice ruled that it followed from Article 1 of Regulation 3118/93 that a company was entitled to operate national road haulage services in another Member State as enshrined by Article 71 European Community, if it obtained cabotage authorisations issued by the Member State of establishment. Article 6 of the regulation did not include either the obligation to register the vehicle in the host Member State or the obligation to pay tax on the vehicles. Moreover, Article 8(1) provided that Member States were to co-operate with each other in the application of the regulation; Germany was not entitled not to recognise cabotage authorisations issued by the Member State of establishment or to impose a condition for carrying out cabotage by road not laid down by the regulation. Article 6 of the regulation did not therefore allow a host Member State to levy vehicle tax on vehicles established in another Member State, regardless of whether they were based in the host Member State.
The objective of Regulation 3118/93 could not be achieved if the host Member State was able, on the ground that a vehicle fell within the scope of the national law on the taxation of vehicles, to require a carrier to pay one of the taxes referred to in Article 3(1) of that directive, when such a tax had already been paid in the Member State of establishment.
Therefore, Article 5 of Directive 93/89 precluded a host Member State from levying vehicle tax on vehicles established in another Member State, even though those vehicles were based in the host Member State.
(Andreas Hoves Internationaler Transport-Service Sàrl v Finanzamt Borken (Case C-115/00), European Court of Justice, 2 July 2002.)
