Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:686
Date: 2013-10-24
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 24 October 2013 Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Deduction of input tax — Refund of excess — National rule precluding reimbursement subsequently annulled by a court ruling — Default interest not payable for the period of validity of that rule — Unlawful (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 183) Article 183 of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a situation in which a taxable person, having made a claim for refund of excess input value added tax over the value added tax which it is liable to pay, cannot obtain from the tax authorities of a Member State default interest on a refund made late by those authorities in respect of a period during which administrative measures precluding the refund, which were subsequently annulled by a court ruling, were in force. While the implementation of the right to a refund of excess value added tax provided for in Article 183 of that directive falls, as a general rule, under the procedural autonomy of the Member States, the fact remains that that autonomy is circumscribed by the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. In this respect, when the refund to the taxable person of the excess value added tax is not made within a reasonable period, the principle of fiscal neutrality of the value added tax system requires that the financial losses incurred by the taxable person owing to the unavailability of the sums of money at issue are compensated through the payment of default interest. In addition, from the taxable person’s perspective, the reason why the refund of excess value added tax is delayed is irrelevant. There is no material difference in that situation between a refund delayed because a claim was dealt with administratively after the expiry of the time limits and one delayed by administrative measures which unlawfully preclude the refund and are subsequently annulled by a court ruling. (see paras 20, 23, 25, 26, operative part)