CELEX: 62010CN0591
Language: en
Date: 2010-12-14 00:00:00
Title: Case C-591/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 14 December 2010 — Littlewoods Retail Ltd and others v Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs

19.3.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 89/6
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) (United Kingdom) made on 14 December 2010 — Littlewoods Retail Ltd and others v Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-591/10)
   2011/C 89/12
   Language of the case: English
   
      Referring court
   
   High Court of Justice (Chancery Division)
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Littlewoods Retail Ltd and others
   
      Defendant: Her Majesty's Commissioners of Revenue and Customs
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Where a taxable person has overpaid VAT which was collected by the Member State contrary to the requirements of EU VAT legislation, does the remedy provided by a Member State accord with EU law if that remedy provides only for (a) reimbursement of the principal sums overpaid, and (b) simple interest on those sums in accordance with national legislation, such as section 78 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               If not, does EU law require that the remedy provided by a Member State should provide for (a) reimbursement of the principal sums overpaid, and (b) payment of compound interest as the measure of the use value of the sums overpaid in the hands of the Member State and/or the loss of the use value of the money in the hands of the taxpayer?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               If the answer to both questions 1 and 2 is in the negative, what must the remedy that EU law requires the Member State to provide include, in addition to reimbursement of the principal sums overpaid, in respect of the use value of the overpayment and/or interest?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, does the EU law principle of effectiveness require a member state to disapply national law restrictions (such as sections 78 and 80 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994) on any domestic claims or remedies that would otherwise be available to the taxable person to vindicate the EU law right established in the Court of Justice's answer to the first 3 questions, or is it sufficient that the national court disapplies such restrictions only in respect of one of these domestic claims or remedies? What other principles should guide the national court in giving effect to this EU law right so as to accord with the EU law principle of effectiveness?