# C_2019383EN.01001101.xml

| 11.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 383/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.11.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 383/11

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Ploiești — Romania) — Oana Mădălina Călin v Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Dâmbovița, Statul Român — Ministerul Finanțelor Publice, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Case C-676/17) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Principles of EU law - Procedural autonomy - Principles of equivalence and effectiveness - Principle of legal certainty - Res judicata - Recovery of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of EU law - Final decision of a court or tribunal imposing payment of a tax which is incompatible with EU law - Application for revision of such a decision - Time limit within which that application must be submitted)

(2019/C 383/09)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Curtea de Apel Ploiești

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Oana Mădălina Călin

Respondents: Direcția Regională a Finanțelor Publice Ploiești — Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Dâmbovița, Statul Român — Ministerul Finanțelor Publice, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | EU law, in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, a national provision, as interpreted by a judgment of a national court, providing for a one-month limitation period for the submission of a request for revision of a final judicial decision handed down in breach of EU law, running from the date of communication of the decision of which revision is sought. |
| --- | --- |

1.

EU law, in particular the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, a national provision, as interpreted by a judgment of a national court, providing for a one-month limitation period for the submission of a request for revision of a final judicial decision handed down in breach of EU law, running from the date of communication of the decision of which revision is sought.

| 2. | However, the principle of effectiveness, in conjunction with the principle of legal certainty, must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those as issue in the main proceedings, application by a national court of a one-month limitation period for the submission of a request for revision of a final judicial decision when, at the time that request for revision is made, the judgment introducing that limitation period has not yet been published in the Monitorul Oficial al României. |
| --- | --- |

2.

However, the principle of effectiveness, in conjunction with the principle of legal certainty, must be interpreted as precluding, in circumstances such as those as issue in the main proceedings, application by a national court of a one-month limitation period for the submission of a request for revision of a final judicial decision when, at the time that request for revision is made, the judgment introducing that limitation period has not yet been published in the Monitorul Oficial al României.

---

(1)  OJ C 63, 19.2.2018.

---