Constitutionality Review

Contested Provision

It is set forth in the contested provision that in respect of persons with a disability rate of less than 90%, only those who can substantiate, by means of a medical board report, that they are able to use the purchased vehicle through special operating equipment adapted to their disability shall be entitled to the special consumption tax exemption applicable upon the initial purchase of the vehicle.

Grounds for the Request for Annulment

It was maintained in brief that the contested provision was unconstitutional, as it confined the entitlement to the special consumption tax exemption, in cases where the disability rate was below 90%, to persons who were able to personally drive the vehicle by means of special operating equipment adapted to their disability. It was therefore argued that this approach conflicted with the State’s positive obligation to take measures ensuring the protection of persons with disabilities and their integration into society, thus infringing the principles of the social state and equality, and was incompatible with the international treaties concerning the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities.

The Court’s Assessment

It is apparent that the contested provision is intended to grant the benefit of the special consumption tax exemption to persons with disabilities who, due to their disability, are incapable of driving a vehicle without special operating equipment adapted to their needs and who are accordingly certified, by a medical board report, as being able to use the purchased vehicle only with such special equipment.

Thus, the provision prevents persons with disabilities who have been found ineligible to obtain a driving licence, and who are therefore unable to drive any vehicle, even by means of special operating equipment adapted to their disability, from benefiting from the exemption concerned.

The legislator enjoys a margin of appreciation in specifying the terms and conditions for tax advantage afforded to persons with disabilities. However, in stipulating that among persons with a disability rate below 90%, only those who install special operating equipment adapted to their disability in order to personally drive the purchased vehicle are entitled to the special consumption tax exemption, the legislator cannot be said to have properly taken into account the personal circumstances of persons with a disability rate below 90% who, nevertheless, lack the necessary physical and mental capacity to operate a vehicle and are therefore unable to obtain a driving licence. Accordingly, the contested provision was found to be in breach of the State’s positive obligation to take the necessary measures to ensure the protection of persons with disabilities and their integration into society, in the context of the principle of the social state.

It has been further concluded that there is no objective and reasonable justification for denying the special consumption tax exemption to persons with a disability rate below 90% who, due to their disability, are ineligible for a driving licence and therefore unable to operate any vehicle, even with special operating equipment, and that this difference in treatment contravened the principle of equality.

Consequently, the contested provision has been found unconstitutional and therefore annulled.