Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH gegen Hauptzollamt Osnabrück

JUDGMENT OF 4. 6. 2015 — CASE C‑5/14 KERNKRAFTWERKE LIPPE-EMS

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) 4 June 2015 Language of the case: German.

Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH v Hauptzollamt Osnabrück

THE COURT (Third Chamber), composed of M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. Ó Caoimh, C. Toader, E. Jarašiūnas and C.G. Fernlund, Judges, Advocate General: M. Szpunar, Registrar: K. Malacek, Administrator, having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 4 November 2014 , after considering the observations submitted on behalf of: Kernkraftwerke Lippe-Ems GmbH, by J. Lüdicke and G. Roderburg, Rechtsanwälte, the Hauptzollamt Osnabrück, by C. Schürle and I. Schmidtke, acting as Agents, the German Government, by T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents, the Finnish Government, by S. Hartikainen and J. Heliskoski, acting as Agents, the European Commission, by R. Lyal and R. Sauer, acting as Agents, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 3 February 2015 , gives the following

Article 267 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a national court which has doubts as to whether national legislation is compatible with both EU law and with the Constitution of the Member State concerned neither loses the right nor, as the case may be, is exempt from the obligation to submit questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the interpretation or validity of that law, on the ground that an interlocutory procedure for review of the constitutionality of that legislation is pending before the national court responsible for carrying out such review.

Article 14(1)(a) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity and Article 1(1) and (2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC are to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which levies a duty on the use of nuclear fuel for the commercial production of electricity.

Article 107 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which levies a duty on the use of nuclear fuel for the commercial production of electricity.

The first paragraph of Article 93 EA, Article 191 EA, in conjunction with the first paragraph of Article 3 of the Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, and the second paragraph of Article 192 EA, in conjunction with the second paragraph of Article 1 EA and Article 2(d) EA, are to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which imposes a duty on the use of nuclear fuel for the commercial production of electricity.

[Signatures]