Milan Kyrian v Celní úřad Tábor.
Date: 2010-01-14
34. Directive 76/308 establishes common rules on mutual assistance in order to ensure the recovery of claims relating, inter alia, to certain levies, duties and taxes (see, to that effect, Case C-470/04 N  [2006] ECR I‑7409, paragraph 53).
35. In order to ensure that Directive 76/308 is given full effect and an autonomous interpretation, reference should be made principally to its general scheme and objectives (see, by analogy, Case C‑433/01 Blijdenstein  [2004] ECR I‑981, paragraph 24, and Case C‑347/08 Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse  [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 35).
39. On the other hand, under Article 12(3) of Directive 76/308, where it is the enforcement measures taken in the Member State in which the requested authority is situated that are being contested, the action is to be brought before the competent body of that Member State in accordance with its laws and regulations.
40. That division of powers results from the fact that the claim and the instrument permitting enforcement are established on the basis of the law in force in the Member State in which the applicant authority is situated, whilst, for enforcement measures in the Member State in which the requested authority is situated, the latter applies, pursuant to Articles 5 and 6 of Directive 76/308, the provisions which its national law lays down for corresponding measures, that authority being the best placed to judge the legality of the measure according to its national law (see, by analogy, Case C‑184/05 Twoh International  [2007] ECR I‑7897, paragraph 36, and Case C-318/07 Persche  [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 63).
42. Although it thus falls, in principle, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the bodies of the Member State in which the applicant authority is situated to hear any disputes concerning the validity of the claim or the instrument permitting enforcement, it cannot be ruled out that, exceptionally, the bodies of the Member State in which the requested authority is situated will be authorised to review whether the enforcement of the instrument is liable, in particular, to be contrary to the public policy of that last mentioned State and, where appropriate, to refuse to grant assistance in whole or in part or to make it subject to fulfilling certain conditions.
43. In accordance with Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 76/308, the claim forming the subject‑matter of a request for recovery and the instrument permitting the enforcement of the claim are treated in the same way as similar claims and instruments of the Member State in which the requested authority is situated. However, it is hard to imagine that an instrument permitting the enforcement of the claim would be enforced by that Member State if that enforcement were liable to be contrary to the public policy of that State. In addition, the public policy exception is provided for in Article 4(3) of Directive 76/308, in connection with requests for supply of information submitted by the applicant authority, whereby the requested authority may refuse such supply in particular where it would be liable to be contrary to the public policy of the Member State in which it is situated.
57. It follows from the purpose of the Directive 76/308 that it is intended to ensure, in particular, the effective notification of all instruments and decisions, including those of a judicial nature, which emanate from the Member State in which the applicant authority is situated and which relate to a claim and/or to its recovery. However, that directive cannot attain that purpose unless it respects the legitimate interests of the addressees of the notifications (see, by analogy, Case C‑473/04 Plumex  [2006] ECR I-1417, paragraph 21).
58. It should be pointed out in that regard that the function of notification, in due time, is to make it possible for the addressee to understand the subject‑matter and the cause of the notified measure and to assert his rights (see, to that effect, Case C‑14/07 Weiss und Partner  [2008] ECR I‑3367, paragraph 73).
61. Given that Directive 76/308 does not set out the consequences where the notification is made in a language other than the official language of the Member State in which the requested authority is situated, it is for the national court to apply national law while taking care to ensure the full effectiveness of Community law, a task which may lead it to interpret a national rule which has been drawn up with only a purely domestic situation in mind in order to apply it to the cross-border situation at issue (see, to that effect, Case C‑443/03 Leffler  [2005] ECR I‑9611, paragraph 51).
62. In accordance with the settled case‑law of the Court, in the absence of express Community provisions, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to determine the procedural conditions governing actions at law intended to ensure the protection of directly effective Community law rights (see, to that effect Case 33/76 Rewe‑Zentralfinanz and Rewe‑Zentral  [1976] ECR I‑1989, paragraph 5 and Leffler , paragraph 49). The Court has also held that those conditions cannot be less favourable than those relating to rights originating in the domestic legal order (principle of equivalence) and cannot make it impossible or excessively difficult in practice to exercise rights conferred by the Community legal order (principle of effectiveness) (see Rewe‑Zentralfinanz and Rewe‑Zentral , paragraph 5; Case C‑261/95 Palmisani  [1997] ECR I-4025, paragraph 27; Case C‑231/96 Edis  [1998] ECR I-4951, paragraph 34; and Leffler , paragraph 50).