Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. In the three questions which it has referred to this Court on the subject of value-added tax (VAT), the tribunal d'instance of Bordeaux asks in substance:

2. Those questions were raised in proceedings relating to value-added tax charged by the French customs administration on a secondhand vehicle imported from Belgium by a national of that Member State residing in France. In all essential respects they have already been answered by the Court's two Schul judgments, the first of which was delivered on 5 May 1982 (Case 15/81 Schul y Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen [1982] ECR 1409, hereinafter referred to as Schul I) and the second on 21 May 1985 (Case 47/84 Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Schul [1985] ECR 1501, hereinafter referred to as Schul U).

3. With regard to Question 1, Mrs Bergeres-Becque, who is the plaintiff in the main action, the Netherlands and the Commission take the view that the fact that the imported goods were not transferred for consideration does not call in question the application of the principles enunciated by the Court in Schul I and Schul II.

4. In answering Question 2, it is necessary to bear in mind that, as I have already indicated, the Court ruled in Schul II that the pan of the VAT paid in the exporting Member State with which the goods are still burdened at the time of importation

5. By Question 3, the tribunal d'instance of Bordeaux seeks the Court's guidance on the detailed rules for the application of VAT in the importing Member State.

6. I therefore propose that the Court answer the questions referred to it by the tribunal d'instance of Bordeaux as follows :

1 Translated from the French.