Case C‑200/14

Silvia Georgiana Câmpean

v

Administrația Finanțelor Publice a Municipiului Mediaș

and

Administrația Fondului pentru Mediu

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Sibiu)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Principle of sincere cooperation — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — National legislation laying down the detailed rules for the repayment of taxes improperly levied with interest — Enforcement of judicial decisions relating to such rights to repayment stemming from the legal order of the Union — Refund payable over a period of five years — Repayment contingent on the existence of funds received from a tax — No possibility of enforcement’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 30 June 2016

EU law — Direct effect — National taxes incompatible with EU law — Repayment — Procedures — Application of national law — Limits — Observance of the principle of effectiveness — Refund payable over a period of five years — Repayment contingent on the existence of funds received from a tax — No possibility of enforcement — Unlawful

EU law — Direct effect — National taxes incompatible with EU law — Repayment — Procedures — Application of national law — Limits — Respect for the principle of loyal cooperation — Introduction of restrictive procedural rules specifically applicable to the restitution of taxation declared contrary to EU law — Lawfulness — Verification a matter for the national court

Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Admissibility — Need for a preliminary ruling and relevance of the questions referred — Assessment by the national court — Presumption of relevance of the questions referred

See the text of the decision. (see paras 29, 31-33)

See the text of the decision. (see para. 34)

The principle of sincere cooperation must therefore be interpreted as precluding a Member State from adopting provisions making repayment of a tax which has been held to be contrary to EU law by a judgment of the Court, or whose incompatibility with EU law results from such a judgment, subject to conditions relating specifically to that tax which are less favourable than those that would have applied, in their absence, to such a repayment; it is for the national court to determine whether that principle has been complied with. (see paras 44, 71, operative part)

The principle of equivalence must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from providing procedural rules which are less favourable for applications for the repayment of a tax based on an infringement of EU law than those applicable to similar actions based on an infringement of domestic law. It is for the national court to make the necessary checks to ensure compliance with that principle so far as concerns the legislation applicable to the dispute pending before it. Thus, it will be for the national court, seized of an action for repayment of a tax based on an infringement of EU law, to identify, in the first place, the national action or actions which are similar to that action and to determine, in the second place, whether or not the procedural rules applicable to such national actions are, in fact, more favourable than those applicable to the case in the main proceedings pending before it. (see paras 53, 56, 71, operative part)