CELEX: 62012CN0362
Language: en
Date: 2012-07-30 00:00:00
Title: Case C-362/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 30 July 2012 — Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

13.10.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 311/5
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 30 July 2012 — Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-362/12)
   2012/C 311/05
   Language of the case: English
   
      Referring court
   
   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation
   
      Defendants: Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Where under the law of a Member State a taxpayer can choose between two alternative causes of action in order to claim restitution of taxes levied contrary to Articles 49 and 63 TFEU and one of those causes of action benefits from a longer limitation period, is it compatible with the principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and legitimate expectations for that Member State to enact legislation curtailing that longer limitation period without notice and retrospectively to the date of the public announcement of the proposed new legislation?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Does it make any difference to the answer to Question 1 that, at the moment when the taxpayer issued its claim using the cause of action which benefited from the longer limitation period, the availability of the cause of action under national law had only been recognised (i) recently and (ii) by a lower court and was not definitively confirmed by the highest judicial authority until later?