CELEX: 62016CA0500
Language: en
Date: 2017-12-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-500/16: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Caterpillar Financial Services sp. z o.o. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135(1)(a) — Exemptions — Taxes levied in breach of EU law — Obstacles to the refund of an overpayment of VAT — Article 4(3) TUE — Principles of equivalence, effectiveness and sincere cooperation — Rights conferred on individuals — Expiry of the limitation period for the tax liability — Effects of a judgment of the Court — Principle of legal certainty)

26.2.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 72/23
            
         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny — Poland) — Caterpillar Financial Services sp. z o.o.
   (Case C-500/16) (1)
   
   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 135(1)(a) - Exemptions - Taxes levied in breach of EU law - Obstacles to the refund of an overpayment of VAT - Article 4(3) TUE - Principles of equivalence, effectiveness and sincere cooperation - Rights conferred on individuals - Expiry of the limitation period for the tax liability - Effects of a judgment of the Court - Principle of legal certainty))
   (2018/C 072/30)
   Language of the case: Polish
   
      Referring court
   
   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Caterpillar Financial Services sp. z o.o.
   
      In the presence of: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The principles of equivalence and effectiveness, read in the light of Article 4(3) TEU, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a request for a refund of an overpayment of value added tax to be refused where that request was submitted by the taxable person after the expiry of the five-year limitation period, although it follows from a judgment of the Court, delivered after the expiry of that period, that the payment of the VAT which is the subject of that request for a refund was not payable.
   
      (1)  OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.