Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2020:825
Date: 2020-10-14
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Internal taxation
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Translation C-677/19 — 1 
Case C-677/19 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
11 September 2019 
Referring court: 
Tribunalul Vâlcea (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
25 April 2019 
Applicant: 
S.C. Valoris S.R.L. 
Defendants: 
Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Craiova — 
Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Vâlcea 
Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu 
  
[…] 
TRIBUNALUL VÂLCEA ‒ SECȚIA A II-A CIVILĂ (Regional Court, Vâlcea, 
Romania — Second Civil Division) 
ORDER 
Public hearing of 25 April 2019 
[…] 
Entered in the register of administrative and tax cases is an action brought by the 
applicant S.C. Valoris S.R.L. against the defendant Direcția Generală Regională a 
Finanțelor Publice Craiova ‒ Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Vâlcea 
(Regional Directorate-General of Public Finances of Craiova, Romania — County 
Administration for Public Finances of Vâlcea, Romania) and the defendant, joined 
in an action on a warranty or guarantee, Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu 
(Environment Fund Administration, Romania), concerning a claim for 
reimbursement of an environmental stamp duty. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 4. 2019 — CASE C-677/19 
 
2  
[…] 
THE TRIBUNALUL 
on the matter of referring a question to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union for a preliminary ruling, observes as follows: 
I. Subject matter of the dispute. Relevant facts 
1. The applicant, S.C. Valoris S.R.L., a company with its registered office in 
Râmnicu Vâlcea, […] submitted an application to the Tribunalul Vâlcea (Regional 
Court, Vâlcea) on 30 January 2019 seeking an order requiring the defendants 
Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Craiova ‒ Administrația 
Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Vâlcea (Regional Directorate-General of Public 
Finances of Craiova — County Administration for Public Finances of Vâlcea) and 
Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu (Environment Fund Administration) to 
reimburse it the sum of RON 2 451 which it paid in environmental stamp duty, 
together with tax interest calculated from the date of payment to the date of 
reimbursement, and costs. 
2. The applicant paid the sum of RON 2 451 on 25 August 2014 so that it could 
register in Romania a […] car which it had purchased in the Netherlands, where it 
had first been registered on 12 January 2007. 
3. The obligation to pay the environmental stamp duty was laid down, at the 
time of registration of the vehicle, by Article 4(a) of Ordonanța de urgență a 
Guvernului nr. 9/2013 privind timbrul de mediu pentru autovehicule (Government 
Emergency Order No 9/2013 concerning the environmental stamp duty in respect 
of motor vehicles) (‘OUG No 9/2013’). 
4. On 7 August 2017 Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 52/2017 privind 
restituirea sumelor reprezentând taxa specială pentru autoturisme și autovehicule, 
taxa pe poluare pentru autovehicule, taxa pentru emisiile poluante provenite de la 
autovehicule și timbrul de mediu pentru autovehicule (Government Emergency 
Order No 52/2017 concerning the reimbursement of sums paid by way of the 
special tax on cars and motor vehicles, the pollution tax on motor vehicles, the tax 
on polluting emissions from motor vehicles and the environmental stamp duty on 
motor vehicles) (‘OUG No 52/2017’) entered into force. That order established 
the entitlement of taxpayers that had paid taxes of the kind mentioned in the title 
of the order (including the environmental stamp duty) to request reimbursement, 
together with interest [OR 2] for the period between levying and reimbursement, 
by lodging an application with the competent tax authority. 
5. Under Article 1(2) of OUG No 52/2017, applications for reimbursement had 
to be submitted by 31 August 2018, failing which they would be invalid. 
VALORIS 
 
3 
6. The applicant failed to comply with that time limit, instead lodging with the 
Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Vâlcea (County Administration for 
Public Finances of Vâlcea) its application for the reimbursement of RON 2 451 on 
6 December 2018. 
7. By letter of 7 January 2019, the defendant tax authority informed the 
applicant that its application for reimbursement was refused, since it had been 
lodged out of time. 
II. Provisions of national law applicable in the present case 
8. The substantive law which applies in this case is as follows: 
Article 4 of OUG No 9/2013 (in force until 31 January 2017): 
‘The obligation to pay the stamp duty, which is payable only once, arises: (a) 
upon the registration with the competent authority, in accordance with the law, of 
the acquisition of ownership of a motor vehicle by its first owner in Romania, 
upon the issue of a registration certificate and upon the issue of a registration 
number; … ’ 
Article 1 of OUG No 52/2017: 
‘(1) Taxpayers who have paid the special tax on cars and motor vehicles 
referred to in Articles 2141 to 2143 of Legea nr. 571/2003 privind Codul fiscal 
(Law No 571/2003 establishing the Tax Code), as subsequently amended and 
supplemented, the pollution tax on motor vehicles, established by Ordonanța de 
urgență a Guvernului nr. 50/2008 pentru instituirea taxei pe poluare pentru 
autovehicule (Government Emergency Order No 50/2008 establishing the 
pollution tax on motor vehicles), approved by Law No 140/2011, the tax on 
polluting emissions from motor vehicles, established by Legea nr. 9/2012 privind 
taxa pentru emisiile poluante provenite de la autovehicule (Law No 9/2012 
establishing the tax on polluting emissions from motor vehicles), as subsequently 
amended, or the environmental stamp duty on motor vehicles, established by 
[OUG No 9/2013], approved, with amendments and supplements, by Law 
No 37/2014, as subsequently amended and supplemented, and who have not been 
reimbursed such tax or duty prior to the entry into force of the present order, may 
request reimbursement, together with interest for the period between the date of 
levying and the date of reimbursement, by making an application to the competent 
central tax authority. The rate of interest shall be that laid down in Article 174(5) 
of Legea nr. 207/2015 privind Codul de procedură fiscală (Law No 207/2015 
establishing the Tax Procedure Code), as subsequently amended and 
supplemented. 
(2) Taxpayers shall be entitled to apply for reimbursement, as referred to in 
paragraph (1), as from the date of entry into force of the present order, 
irrespective of the date on which the tax or duty was levied. By way of derogation 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 4. 2019 — CASE C-677/19 
 
4  
from Article 219 of Law No 207/2015, as subsequently amended and 
supplemented, applications for reimbursement shall be lodged by no later than 
31 August 2018, failing which they shall be invalid.’ 
Article 168 of Legea nr. 207/2015 privind Codul de procedură fiscală (Law 
No 207/2015 establishing the Tax Procedure Code): 
‘(1) Upon application by the taxpayer/payer, any sums unduly paid and received 
shall be reimbursed.’ 
Article 219 of Law No 207/2015: 
‘The right of taxpayers/payers to apply for reimbursement of taxes shall become 
time-barred 5 years after 1 January of the year following the year in which the 
right to reimbursement arose.’ [OR 3] 
III. Provisions of EU law relevant to the present case 
9. The Tribunalul considers that Article 110 of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union is relevant to the present case. Article 110 TFEU provides: 
‘No Member State shall impose, directly or indirectly, on the products of other 
Member States any internal taxation of any kind in excess of that imposed directly 
or indirectly on similar domestic products.’  
10. Furthermore, a number of principles and pronouncements which might be 
relevant to the present dispute appear in the case-law of the Court of Justice of the 
European Union (‘the Court’): 
In so far as concerns the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Article 4(3) 
of the Treaty on European Union, the Court has held that ‘a Member State may 
not adopt provisions making repayment of a tax held to be contrary to [EU] law 
by a judgment of the Court, or whose incompatibility with [EU] law is apparent 
from such a judgment, subject to conditions relating specifically to that tax which 
are less favourable than those which would otherwise be applied to repayment of 
the tax in question’ (judgments of 10 September 2002, Prisco and CASER, 
C-216/99 and C-222/99; of 2 October 2003, Weber’s Wine World and Others, 
C-147/01; and of 30 June 2016, Ciup, C-288/14). 
It is also apparent from the case-law of the Court that ‘compliance with the 
principle of equivalence implies that Member States are not to lay down 
procedural rules that are less favourable in actions based on infringement of EU 
law than those which apply to actions based on infringement of national law that 
are similar, having regard to their purpose, cause of action and essential 
characteristics’ (judgments of 19 July 2012, Littlewoods Retail and Others, 
C-591/10, and of 30 June 2016, Ciup, C-288/14). 
VALORIS 
 
5 
The Court has also stated that remedies provided in domestic law for the recovery 
of certain taxes levied in breach of EU law must comply with the principle of 
effectiveness, which means that they should not be subject to procedural rules that 
render it ‘virtually impossible or excessively difficult to obtain reparation’ 
(judgments of 10 July 1997, Palmisani, C-261/95, and of 12 December 2006, Test 
Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, C-446/04). 
IV The reasons for which the referring court is making the present 
request for a preliminary ruling 
11. In its judgment of 9 June 2016 in Budișan (C-586/14), the Court held that, 
while Article 110 TFEU does not preclude a Member State from introducing a tax 
on motor vehicles which is levied on imported second-hand motor vehicles at the 
time of their first registration in that Member State and on motor vehicles already 
registered in that Member State at the time of the first transfer, within that 
Member State, of the ownership of those motor vehicles, it does preclude that 
Member State from exempting from that tax motor vehicles already registered and 
in respect of which a tax previously in force but found to be incompatible with EU 
law has been paid and not reimbursed. 
12. That judgment was delivered after a number of other judgments in which the 
Court held that pollution taxes on motor vehicles that had been instituted 
previously in Romanian law and which were similar to the environmental stamp 
duty were contrary to EU law (judgments of 7 April 2011, Tatu, C-402/09, and of 
7 July 2011, Nisipeanu, C-263/10; order of 3 February 2014, Câmpean and 
Ciocoiu, C-97/13 and C-214/13; judgment of 14 April 2015, Manea, C-76/14). 
13. Consequently, the Romanian Government adopted OUG No 52/2017, so as 
to make provision for the full reimbursement, including interest, of all taxes 
similar in nature to those just mentioned. [OR 4] 
14. However, as has been stated, Article 1(2) of OUG No 52/2017 laid down a 
time limit within which taxpayers were required to lodge with the competent tax 
authorities their applications for reimbursement, that is to say, by no later than 
31 August 2018. Accordingly, individuals who had paid the relevant taxes were 
allowed approximately 1 year in which to exercise their right to reimbursement 
(from 7 August 2017, when OUG No 52/2017 entered into force, until 31 August 
2018). 
15. In the action which it has brought before the referring court, the applicant, 
which failed to comply with the abovementioned time limit, submits that that time 
limit infringes EU law, in that it restricts the right of taxpayers to obtain within the 
generally applicable limitation period laid down by Article 219 of the Codul de 
procedură fiscală (Tax Procedure Code) the reimbursement of taxes that have 
been unlawfully levied. The applicant also maintains that, according to the case-
law of the Court, periods of between 3 and 5 years have been regarded as 
reasonable for the exercise of the right to reimbursement of such taxes. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 4. 2019 — CASE C-677/19 
 
6  
16. The referring court considers it useful and necessary to have the Court’s 
interpretation of the extent to which the principles of sincere cooperation, 
equivalence and effectiveness, as they are presented in the Court’s case-law, are 
observed or otherwise by the introduction of a time limit that applies to the 
exercise of the right to reimbursement of a tax levied in breach of EU law, such as 
that laid down in Article 1(2) of OUG No 52/2017. 
17. In that context, it should be noted that the time limit laid down in 
Article 1(2) of OUG No 52/2017 is a special time limit that was laid down in an 
ad hoc manner to apply to applications for the reimbursement of pollution taxes. 
No similar time limits are laid down for applications for the reimbursement of 
other sums paid into the State budget in breach of domestic law. 
18. In so far as concerns taxes and other fiscal charges that have been found by 
national courts to have been established and levied in breach of provisions of 
domestic law, the right to reimbursement may be exercised by the taxpayer within 
the limitation period governed by Article 219 of Legea nr. 207/2015 privind 
Codul de procedură fiscală (Law No 207/2015 establishing the Tax Procedure 
Code), that is to say, within a period of 5 years following 1 January of the year 
following the year in which the right to reimbursement arose. 
19. The question therefore arises of whether the principles of sincere 
cooperation and equivalence have been observed, inasmuch as the Romanian 
legislature has introduced a time limit that applies only to the reimbursement of 
pollution taxes, while the reimbursement of other sums levied in breach of 
domestic law are not subject to such a time limit, the limitation period which 
applies to the exercise of the right to reimbursement being significantly longer 
(5 years). 
20. Moreover, it has been held in the case-law of the Court that EU law allows 
the stipulation of reasonable time limits (failing which the action will be time-
barred) for bringing proceedings for the reimbursement of sums unduly paid, in 
the interests of legal certainty, which protects both the taxpayer and the 
administration concerned (judgments of 16 December 1976, Rewe-Zentralfmanz 
and Rewe-Zentral, C-33/76; of 17 July 1997, Haahr Petroleum, C-90/94; and of 
17 November 1998, Aprile, C-228/96). Such reasonable time limits cannot be 
regarded as contrary to the principle of effectiveness, even if the expiry of those 
time limits necessarily entails the dismissal of the action brought (judgment of 
28 November 2000, Roquette Frères, C-88/99). Thus, a time limit under domestic 
law of 3 years has been found to be reasonable (judgment of 15 September 1998, 
Edis, C-231/96). 
21. Given that the time limit of approximately 1 year laid down in Article 1(2) 
of OUG No 52/2017 is shorter than other time limits which the referring court has 
identified in the case-law of the Court as being compatible with the principle of 
effectiveness, the Tribunalul [OR 5] considers it necessary, in order to resolve the 
VALORIS 
 
7 
present dispute, to obtain an answer from the Court as to the interpretation of the 
principles at issue. 
ON THOSE GROUNDS, 
IN THE NAME OF THE LAW 
ORDERS: 
That the following question is to be referred to the Court of Justice of the 
European Union, pursuant to Article 267 TFEU, for a preliminary ruling: 
Are the principles of sincere cooperation, equivalence and effectiveness to be 
interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Article 1(2) of 
Ordonanța de urgență a Guvernului nr. 52/2017 (Government Emergency 
Order No 52/2017), which has laid down a time limit of approximately 1 year 
for the lodging of applications for the reimbursement of certain taxes levied 
in breach of EU law, while domestic legislation lays down no similar time 
limit for the exercise of the right to reimbursement of sums levied in breach 
of domestic law? 
[…] [procedural matters and signatures]