Caterpillar Financial Services sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie.
Date: 2017-12-20
28


First of all, it must be noted that the Member States are obliged, under, inter alia, the principle of sincere cooperation, laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 4(3) TEU, to ensure, in their respective territory, the application of and compliance with EU law and that, under the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) TEU, the Member States are to take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 September 2017, The Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme, C‑628/15, EU:C:2017:687, paragraph 47).
31


As regards, first, the effects of a preliminary ruling, it should be noted that, in accordance with settled case-law, the interpretation which the Court, in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by Article 267 TFEU, gives to a rule of EU law clarifies and, where necessary, defines the meaning and scope of that rule as it must be, or ought to have been, understood and applied from the time of its entry into force. It follows that the rule as thus interpreted may, and must, be applied by the courts even to legal relationships arising and established before the delivery of the judgment ruling on the request for interpretation, provided that in other respects the conditions under which an action relating to the application of that rule may be brought before the courts having jurisdiction are satisfied (judgment of 14 April 2015, Manea, C‑76/14, EU:C:2015:216, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited).
32


It is only quite exceptionally that the Court may, in application of the general principle of legal certainty inherent in the European Union legal order, be moved to restrict the opportunity to rely on a provision which it has interpreted (judgment of 14 April 2015, Manea, C‑76/14, EU:C:2015:216, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited).
35


It follows, secondly, from settled case-law that the right to a refund of charges levied in a Member State in breach of the rules of EU law is the consequence and complement of the rights conferred on individuals by provisions of EU law as interpreted by the Court. The Member State is therefore required in principle to repay charges levied in breach of EU law (judgment of 6 September 2011, Lady & Kid and Others, C‑398/09, EU:C:2011:540, paragraph 17 and the case-law cited).
36


However, the Court has held, on several occasions, that the problem of the repayment of charges paid though not due is settled in different ways in the Member States, and even within a single Member State, according to the various kinds of taxes or charges in question. In certain cases, objections or claims of that kind are subject to specific procedural conditions and time limits under the law with regard both to complaints submitted to the tax authorities and to legal proceedings. In other cases, claims for repayment of charges paid but not due must be brought before the ordinary courts, mainly in the form of actions for recovery of sums paid but not owed, such claims being available for varying lengths of time, in some cases for the limitation period laid down under the general law (judgment of 17 June 2004, Recheio — Cash & Carry, C‑30/02, EU:C:2004:373, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited).
37


Therefore, in the absence of harmonised rules governing the reimbursement of charges imposed in breach of EU law, the Member States retain the right to apply procedural rules provided for under their national legal system, in particular concerning limitation periods, subject to observance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness (judgment of 8 September 2011, Q-Beef and Bosschaert, C‑89/10 and C‑96/10, EU:C:2011:555, paragraph 34).
38


In order to determine whether the principle of equivalence has been complied with in the case in the main proceedings, it is therefore necessary to examine whether there exists, in addition to a limitation rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, applicable to actions intended to ensure that the rights derived by individuals from EU law are safeguarded under domestic law, a limitation rule applicable to domestic actions and whether, having regard to their purpose and essential characteristics, the two limitation rules may be considered similar (judgment of 15 April 2010, Barth, C‑542/08, EU:C:2010:193, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited).
41


As regards the principle of effectiveness, it should be noted that the Member States are responsible for ensuring that the rights conferred by EU law are effectively protected in each case and that that principle requires, in particular, that the tax authorities of the Member States do not render practically impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by EU law (see, to that effect, judgments of 8 September 2011, Q-Beef and Bosschaert, C‑89/10 and C‑96/10, EU:C:2011:555, paragraph 32, and of 14 September 2017, The Trustees of the BT Pension Scheme, C‑628/15, EU:C:2017:687, paragraph 59).
42


The Court has stated that it is compatible with EU law to lay down reasonable time limits for bringing proceedings in the interests of legal certainty which protects both the individual and the authorities concerned, even if the expiry of those periods necessarily entails the dismissal, in whole or in part, of the action brought (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 September 2011, Q-Beef and Bosschaert, C‑89/10 and C‑96/10, EU:C:2011:555, paragraph 36). By way of example, limitation periods of three years (judgment of 15 April 2010, Barth, C‑542/08, EU:C:2010:193, paragraph 28) or two years (judgment of 15 December 2011, Banca Antoniana Popolare Veneta, C‑427/10, EU:C:2011:844, paragraph 25), have been held to be compatible with the principle of effectiveness.
45


Thirdly, it should be noted that, according to the Court, EU law precludes a national authority from relying on the expiry of a reasonable limitation period only if the conduct of the national authorities combined with the existence of a limitation period result in depriving a person of the opportunity to enforce his rights before the national courts (see, to that effect, judgment of 8 September 2011, Q-Beef and Bosschaert, C‑89/10 and C‑96/10, EU:C:2011:555, paragraph 51 and the case-law cited).