# C_2016335EN.01000401.xml

| 12.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Timiș — Romania) — Silvia Ciup v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice (AJFP) Timiș — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Timișoara

(Case C-288/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principle of sincere cooperation - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - National legislation laying down the detailed rules for the repayment, with interest, of taxes improperly levied - Enforcement of judicial decisions relating to such rights to repayment stemming from the legal order of the European Union - Repayment by instalments spread over five years - Repayment contingent on the existence of funds received from a tax - No possibility of enforcement))

(2016/C 335/04)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunalul Timiș

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Silvia Ciup

Applicant:

Defendant: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice (AJFP) Timiș — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Timișoara

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The principle of sincere cooperation must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from adopting provisions making repayment of a tax which has been held to be contrary to EU law by a judgment of the Court, or the incompatibility of which with EU law results from such a judgment, subject to conditions relating specifically to that tax which are less favourable than those that would have applied, in their absence, to such repayment; it is for the referring court to determine whether that principle has been complied with in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The principle of sincere cooperation must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from adopting provisions making repayment of a tax which has been held to be contrary to EU law by a judgment of the Court, or the incompatibility of which with EU law results from such a judgment, subject to conditions relating specifically to that tax which are less favourable than those that would have applied, in their absence, to such repayment; it is for the referring court to determine whether that principle has been complied with in the present case.

| 2. | The principle of equivalence must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from providing for procedural rules which are less favourable for actions based on an infringement of EU law than those applicable to similar actions based on an infringement of domestic law. It is for the referring court to carry out the necessary checks to ensure compliance with that principle so far as concerns the legislation applicable to the dispute pending before it. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The principle of equivalence must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from providing for procedural rules which are less favourable for actions based on an infringement of EU law than those applicable to similar actions based on an infringement of domestic law. It is for the referring court to carry out the necessary checks to ensure compliance with that principle so far as concerns the legislation applicable to the dispute pending before it.

| 3. | The principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a system of repayment of sums owed under EU law and the amount of which has been established by enforceable judicial decisions, such as the system at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the repayment of such sums by instalments over five years and which makes the execution of such decisions contingent on the availability of funds received in respect of another tax, without the individual having the right to compel public authorities to fulfil their obligations if they do not do so voluntarily. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The principle of effectiveness must be interpreted as precluding a system of repayment of sums owed under EU law and the amount of which has been established by enforceable judicial decisions, such as the system at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the repayment of such sums by instalments over five years and which makes the execution of such decisions contingent on the availability of funds received in respect of another tax, without the individual having the right to compel public authorities to fulfil their obligations if they do not do so voluntarily.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

1

---