Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:1998:156
Date: 1998-04-02
Language of the case: Italian
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Free movement of goods;Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Customs Union;Charges having an equivalent effect
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Italy

Summary of the J u d g m e n t 
1. Community law — Direct effect — National charges incompatible with Community law — 
Reimbursement — Procedures — Application of national law — Time-limits — Permissible 
— Conditions — Observance of the principle of effectiveness of Community law — Obser­
vance of the principle of equivalence of conditions for proceedings for recovery with those 
applicable to similar claims under domestic law 
2. Community law — Direct effect — National charges incompatible with Community law — 
Reimbursement — Procedures — Possibility of enforcing against individuals national rules 
concerning time-limits before the proper transposition of Community law — Permissible — 
Conditions 
I - 7141 
SUMMARY — CASE C-228/96 
1. In the absence of Community rules on the 
refunding of national charges levied though 
not due, it is for the domestic legal system 
of each Member State to designate the 
courts and tribunals having jurisdiction 
and to lay down the detailed procedural 
rules governing actions for safeguarding 
rights which individuals derive from Com­
munity law, provided, first, that such rules 
are not less favourable than those gov­
erning similar domestic actions (principle 
of equivalence) and, second, that they do 
not render virtually impossible or exces­
sively difficult the exercise of rights con­
ferred by Community law (principle of 
effectiveness). 
As regards the principle of effectiveness, it 
is compatible with Community law to lay 
down reasonable time-limits for bringing 
proceedings in the interests of legal cer­
tainty which protects both the taxpayer 
and the administration concerned. Such 
time-limits are not liable to render virtu­
ally impossible or excessively difficult the 
exercise of rights conferred by Commu­
nity law. In that regard, a time-limit of 
three years under national law, reckoned 
from the date of the contested payment, 
appears reasonable. 
Observance of the principle of equivalence 
implies, for its part, that the procedural 
rule at issue applies without distinction to 
actions alleging infringements of Commu­
nity law and to those alleging infringe­
ments of national law, -with respect to the 
same kind of charges or dues. That prin­
ciple cannot, however, be interpreted as 
obliging a Member State to extend its most 
favourable rules governing recovery under 
national law to all actions for repayment 
of charges or dues levied in breach of 
Community law. Thus, Community law 
does not preclude the legislation of a 
Member State from laying down, along­
side a limitation period applicable under 
the ordinary law to actions between pri­
vate individuals for the recovery of sums 
paid but not due, special detailed rules, 
which are less favourable, governing claims 
and legal proceedings to challenge the 
imposition of charges and other levies. The 
position would be different only if those 
detailed rules applied solely to actions 
based on Community law for the repay­
ment of such charges or levies. 
It follows that Community law does not 
preclude the application of a national pro­
vision which, for all actions for repayment 
of customs charges, imposes a special time-
limit of five, and subsequendy three, years, 
instead of the ordinary limitation period 
of 10 years for actions for the recovery of 
sums paid but not due, provided that that 
time-limit, which is similar to that imposed 
for certain taxes, applies in the same way 
to actions based on Community law for 
repayment of such charges as to those 
based on national law. 
I - 7142 
APRILE v AMMINISTRAZIONE DELLE FINANZE DELLO STATO 
2. Community law does not prohibit a 
Member State from resisting actions for 
repayment of charges levied in breach of 
Community law by relying on a time-limit 
under national law even if that Member 
State has not yet amended its national rules 
in order to render them compatible with 
those provisions, provided, first, that that 
time-limit is not less favourable for actions 
based on Community law than for those 
based on domestic law and that it does 
not render virtually impossible or exces­
sively difficult the exercise of rights con­
ferred by Community law and, second, 
provided that it is not established that the 
conduct of the national authorities, in con­
junction with the existence of the con­
tested time-limit, had the effect of depriving 
the plaintiff of any opportunity of 
enforcing his rights before the national 
courts. 
I - 7143