EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 61987CC0076
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered on 19 April 1988. # G. Seguela and A. Lachkar and others v Administration des impôts. # References for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de grande instance de Saint-Brieuc and Tribunal de grande instance de Nancy - France. # Article 95 - Differential tax on motor vehicles. # Joined cases 76, 86 to 89 and 149/87.
Generalinio advokato Mischo išvada, pateikta 1988 m. balanžio 19 d.
G. Seguela ir A. Lachkar ir kiti prieš Administration des impôts.
Prašymai priimti prejudicinį sprendimą: Tribunal de grande instance de Saint-Brieuc ir Tribunal de grande instance de Nancy - Prancūzija.
95 straipsnis.
Sujungtos bylos 76, 86 iki 89 ir 149/87.
Generalinio advokato Mischo išvada, pateikta 1988 m. balanžio 19 d.
G. Seguela ir A. Lachkar ir kiti prieš Administration des impôts.
Prašymai priimti prejudicinį sprendimą: Tribunal de grande instance de Saint-Brieuc ir Tribunal de grande instance de Nancy - Prancūzija.
95 straipsnis.
Sujungtos bylos 76, 86 iki 89 ir 149/87.
ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:1988:187
61987C0076
Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mischo delivered on 19 April 1988. - G. Seguela and A. Lachkar and others v Administration des impôts. - References for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de grande instance de Saint-Brieuc et Tribunal de grande instance de Nancy - France. - Article 95 - Differential tax on motor vehicles. - Joined cases 76, 86 to 89 and 149/87.
European Court reports 1988 Page 02397
Opinion of the Advocate-General
++++
Mr President,
Members of the Court,
The questions submitted by the tribunal de grande instance, Nancy, which are the subject of Cases 86 to 89/87 and 149/87, are practically identical to the question referred by the tribunal de grande instance, Mulhouse, in the proceedings between Mr Feldain and the French administration des impôts which were the subject of the judgment of the Court of 17 September 1987 ( Case 433/85 (( 1987 )) ECR 3521 ).
As for the question submitted by the tribunal de grande instance, Saint-Brieuc, which is the subject of Case 76/87 Seguela, it differs from the question referred in the Feldain case in that there is no express reference to the formula which determines the power-rating of cars for tax purposes . The national court, however, indicates in its order that its question is identical to the question in the Feldain case and we are thus entitled to conclude that exactly the same problem is in issue .
As for the substance, examination of the cases has not revealed any feature which was not present in the Feldain case .
Under those circumstances I can confine myself to referring to the grounds of the abovementioned judgment of the Court and to the opinion which I delivered in that case on 16 June 1987 .
Consequently, I propose that the Court should give the same answer as in the judgment of 17 September 1987, that is to say that a system of road tax in which one tax band comprises more power-ratings for tax purposes than the others, with the result that the normal progression of the tax is restricted in such a way as to afford an advantage to top-of-the-range cars of domestic manufacture, and in which the power-rating for tax purposes is calculated in a manner which places vehicles imported from other Member States at a disadvantage has a discriminatory or protective effect within the meaning of Article 95 of the Treaty .
As regards costs, the normal practice in references for a preliminary ruling should apply .
(*) Translated from the French .