Menim torej, da so romunski organi predvsem po sodbi Tatu (EU:C:2011:219) v resnici morali izbirati med dvema možnostma, da bi izpolnili obveznosti, ki jih imajo na podlagi prava Unije: bodisi odpraviti okoljsko dajatev za onesnaževanje in zneske, prejete iz naslova te dajatve, povrniti davčnim zavezancem, ki so jo že plačali, ter v prihodnosti uvesti novo dajatev v skladu s členom 110 PDEU bodisi ohraniti okoljsko dajatev za onesnaževanje (pod katerim koli imenom), vendar plačilo te dajatve takoj zahtevati tudi od lastnikov rabljenih vozil, ki so že bila registrirana v Romuniji.
It therefore seems to me that, as a result, in particular, of Tatu (EU:C:2011:219), the Romanian authorities had to choose between two options in order to comply with their obligations under EU law: either to abolish the pollution tax and refund the amounts levied in respect of that tax on taxpayers who had already paid it, whether or not they introduced a new tax in accordance with Article 110 TFEU for the future, or to maintain the pollution tax (under whatever name) but also to impose it immediately on the owners of second-hand vehicles already registered in Romania.EurLex-2 EurLex-2