Case C-96/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 22 February 2010 — Frans Bosschaert v Belgische Staat, Slachthuizen Georges Goossens en Zonen NV and Slachthuizen Goossens NV
Date: 2010-02-22
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, EU law, interpretation of the law, limitation of legal proceedings, tax law








C_2010113EN.01002802.xml










1.5.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 113/28





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel (Belgium), lodged on 22 February 2010 — Frans Bosschaert v Belgische Staat, Slachthuizen Georges Goossens en Zonen NV and Slachthuizen Goossens NV
(Case C-96/10)
2010/C 113/44
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Brussel

Parties to the main proceedings








Applicant


:


Frans Bosschaert




Defendants


:








 


Belgische Staat










 


Slachthuizen Georges Goossens en Zonen NV










 


Slachthuizen Goossens NV









Questions referred







1.


Does Community law preclude national courts from applying the limitation period of five years which is laid down in the internal legal system for claims in respect of debts owed by the State to claims for the reimbursement of charges paid to a Member State under a hybrid system of aid and charges which not only was partially illegal but was also found to be partially incompatible with Community law, and which were paid before the entry into force of a new system of aid and compulsory contributions which replaces the first system, and which, by a final decision of the Commission, was declared compatible with Community law, but not in so far as those charges are imposed retroactively in respect of a period prior to the date of that decision?










2.


Does Community law preclude a situation in which, when a Member State levies charges on a private individual who is in turn obliged to pass the charges on to other private individuals with whom he carries on a commercial activity in a sector on which the Member State has imposed a hybrid system of aid and charges, but that system was subsequently found to be not only partially illegal but also partially incompatible with Community law, those individuals are then, by reason of national provisions, subject to a shorter limitation period with regard to the Member State in respect of the recovery of contributions levied in breach of Community law, whereas they have a longer limitation period with regard to recovery of that same amounts from a private intermediary, with the result that such an intermediary might find itself in a situation where the claim against it is not time-barred but the claim against the Member State is, and the intermediary may thus have an action brought against it by other parties and consequently have to seek indemnification from the Member State concerned, but cannot recover from that Member State the contributions which it paid directly to that Member State?










3.


Does Community law preclude a Member State from successfully invoking national limitation periods which, in comparison with those applicable under ordinary national law, are particularly favourable to that Member State, as a defence against proceedings instituted against it by a private individual with a view to vindicating that private individual’s rights under the EEC Treaty, in a case such as that before the national court, in which the effect of those particularly favourable national limitation periods is to render impossible the recovery of charges which were paid to the Member State under a hybrid system of aid and charges which not only was partially illegal but was also found to be partially incompatible with Community law, where the conflict with Community law was established by the then Court of Justice of the European Communities only after those particularly favourable national limitation periods had expired, even if the illegality had existed earlier?