JUDGEMENT OF THE BUCHAREST COURT

(date)20.11.2009 (312/R5/215) In Case Suruceanu Elena , as the applicant,established in com.Radeni,Iasi , represented by Advocate Popescu Mircea, in quality of applicant, vs. PUBLIC FINANCE ADMINISTRATION, Iasi, represented by Advocate Codrin Timofte, in quality of defendant, APPLICATION for annulment administrative act. REFERENCE(S) for a preliminary ruling under article .[from a national court which requires the Court of Justice of the EU to express its opinion on a certain issue in a case / ACTION under article for failure to fulfil obligations .. / you may add other actions THE BUCHAREST COURT composed of Mihaela Sarbu, President, Alina Stanciu, Rapporteur, Raluca Ciotoroschi,Judges having regard to a decision for cancellation of the Administrative act nr. 10023/23.10.2009 gives the following Judgment

Background to the dispute in fact,the applicant shown that in 2008 she bought a car, made in 2004 second hand, ford mondeo,for wich registration she pay 6675,3 ron enrolment free. The applicant sustain that art.234 of the tax(fiscal) code is contrary to art.90 of the Treaty on European Union Applicant also add that the international traty take precedences of the internal law Inter alia the defendant states that the art.234 is constitutional and legal The apeall was wrongfully dismissed on grounds of constitutionality of art.234 of the fiscal cod

what triggered the dispute length: 3 paragraphs terminology to be used: wrongfully, procedure, applicant, defendant, inter alia, to claim.

Procedure actions in the legal procedure, the applicant request and the payment interests , because for all this time she could not use this money. The defendant asked the rejection for the following reasons: the applicant ask the cancelation of an act who does not meet the conditions of 41 of fiscal code to be annulated and sustain that the tax is percept legal because the art.50 of Constitution is not repealed. Analysing documents and files of the case, the Court notes: the action should consider that this act in unlawful and the art.234 is not Constitutional because it violates the provisions of art.50 of the Treaty UE IN FACT: The applicant requested the return of the tax,considered discriminatory in comparison of the UE Treaty and the defended refused. Applicant filed an appeal against this act, appeal that was not resolved in legal term. The court finds the solutions the reject the applicants appeal is wrong and defendants refusal to return the tax is unreasonably The subject to trial is wether the registration fee( that the payment is required by law) is contrary to UE Treaty, art 50 and analysing the article of code tax in conjunction with Constitution and law 257/2005 In the end of the procedure, the appealant claim for damages and bear the costs by the defendant PUBLIC FINANCE ADMINISTRATION worth 100 RON. e.g.: application (applicant) > plea of inadmissibility (defendant) > observations (applicant) > order: reserve the decision on the plea of inadmissibility for the final judgment (Court) > report of the Judge-Rapporteur (Court) > decision: open oral procedure (Court) > oral arguments by the parties (applicant and defendant) length: 5 paragraphs terminology to be used: to bring an action, to contend, to order, to dismiss, procedure, claim for damages, bear the costs. Law

the court sustain that in the intern law, the registration fee was introduce by law 345/2006, as amended by OUG by 110/2006, article 2 paragraph 1 being introduce and the art. Of the TAX CODE, who establishing ways of calculation the fee and in what circumstances it can be eliminated. -throught corroborating these laws, results that this fee applies only to the new vehicles and after the Romania joined the EU this fee will be eliminated -also of the law 157/2005 coroborating with the jurisprudences of European Court results that community rules override the internal rules. -under the primacy of the Community law, any article that does not match is: law repealed and any court necessarily must apply Community law. -under these circumstances is obvious that Romania has on a discriminatory tax wich violates the principle of free movements of merchandise. contested decision(s)/order(s)/judgment(s) the law articles which are supposed to have been breached by the defendant or by the applicant applicable law in the case case-law referred to by the parties or by the Court precedence of a certain legal system / E.U. law / international agreement / administrative rules etc. length: 4 paragraphs terminology: power of appraisal, to have precedence over, case-law, article, paragraph. On those grounds, THE BUCHAREST COURT hereby: defendants defens of the law 345/2006 is irrelevant and will be removed ; the refusal to refund the registration fee is unjustified. For these reasons of law and factual grounds court obligate the defendant to refund all te tax plus the interest and bear the costs. FOR THESE REASONS IN THE NAME OF LAW , DECIDES Allow the applicants appeal with the right to appeal in 15 days. Delivered in open court today, 05.11.2011 Bucharest court.

Signatures,