Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2000:237
Date: 2000-05-11
Language of the case: French
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Taxation
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment 
Community law — Direct effect — National charges incompatible with Community 
law — Repayment — Procedures — Application of national law — Limitation peri­
ods — Whether permissible — Conditions — Observance of the principle of effective­
ness of Community law — Observance of the principle of equivalence of conditions for 
actions for recovery with those for similar claims under domestic law 
I - 10465 
SUMMARY — CASE C-88/99 
In the absence of Community rules on 
reimbursement 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 determine the procedural conditions 
governing legal proceedings for safeguard­
ing rights which individuals derive from the 
direct effect of Community law, it being 
understood that such rules cannot be less 
favourable than those governing similar 
actions of a domestic nature (principle of 
equivalence), and may not make it impos­
sible or excessively difficult in practice to 
exercise rights which national courts have a 
duty to protect (principle of effectiveness). 
First, as regards the principle of effective­
ness, the establishment of reasonable lim­
itation periods for bringing proceedings 
satisfies that requirement in principle inas­
much as it constitutes an application of the 
fundamental principle of legal certainty. 
Such limitation periods cannot be regarded 
as rendering virtually impossible or exces­
sively difficult the exercise of rights con­
ferred by Community law, even if the 
expiry of those periods necessarily entails 
the dismissal, in whole or in part, of the 
action brought. In that respect, a national 
limitation period of up to a minimum of 4 
years and a maximum of 5 years preceding 
the year of the judicial decision finding the 
rule of national law establishing the tax to 
be incompatible with a superior rule of law 
must be considered reasonable. 
Secondly, observance of the principle of 
equivalence implies that the national pro­
cedure applies without distinction to 
actions alleging infringements of Commu­
nity law and to those alleging infringements 
of national law, with respect to the same 
kind of charges or dues That principle 
cannot, however, be interpreted as obliging 
a Member State to extend its most favour­
able rules of limitation to all actions for 
repayment of charges or dues levied in 
breach of Community law. Thus, Commu­
nity law does not in principle preclude the 
legislation of a Member State from laying 
down, alongside a limitation period applic­
able under the ordinary law to actions 
between private individuals for the recov­
ery 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 differ­
ent only if those detailed rules applied 
solely to actions based on Community law 
for the repayment of such charges or levies. 
It follows that Community law does not 
preclude legislation of a Member State 
I - 10466 
ROQUETTE FRERES 
laying down that, in tax matters, an action 
for recovery of a sum paid but not due 
based on a finding by a national or 
Community court that a national rule is 
not compatible with a superior rule of 
national law or with a Community rule of 
law may only relate to the period following 
1 January of the fourth year preceding that 
of the judgment establishing such incom­
patibility. 
(see paras 20-24, 29-30, 37 
and operative part) 
I - 10467