In accordance with to the provisions of art. 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (ex Article 90 TEC):

No Member State shall impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly or indirectly on similar domestic products. Furthermore, no Member State shall impose on the products of other Member States any internal taxation of such a nature as to afford indirect protection to other products.

The Court concluded firmly, repeatedly, that “Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding a Member State to establish a pollution tax on motor vehicles on first registrations in that Member State if these fiscal measures regime is arranged so as to discourage the circulation, in that Member State, of second-hand vehicles purchased in other Member States, but without discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles having the same length and the same wear on the domestic market “.

Also in its case-law, the Court also noted that:

Art. 110 TFEU aims to ensure the free movement of goods between Member States under normal conditions of competition. It aims to eliminate all forms of protection which may result from the application of discriminatory internal taxation against products from other Member States (Case Tatu,  paragraph 34).

The Court has already held that, in relation to the taxation of motor vehicles, this provision of the Treaty seeks to ensure complete neutrality of internal taxation as regards to the competition between products already on the domestic market and imported products (Decision of 11 December 1990 the Commission / Denmark, C 47/88, Rec., p. 4509 I, section 9, and Decision of 29 April 2004, Weigel, C 387/01, Rec., p. I 4981, paragraph 66).

The Court also stated that, from the moment of payment of the registration fees in one Member State, the amount of this fee is incorporated in the value of the vehicle. Thus, when a vehicle registered in the Member State in question is subsequently sold as a used vehicle in the same Member State, its market value includes the residual value of registration fee and will be equal to a percentage determined by the depreciation of the vehicle, in its initial value (Nádasdi and Németh, C 290/05 and C 333/05, Rec., p. I 10115, paragraph 54).

Considering the entire jurisprudence of the European Court, the Timisoara Court of Appeal admitted the appeal, admitted the action brought by the applicant, canceled the decision issued by the Regional General Directorate of Public Finance, and forced it to refund the environmental stamp and to pay legal interest until the date of actual refund.