Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Entrate v Elsacom NV.
Date: 2012-06-21
19. It should be noted, first, that although the Court does not have jurisdiction to interpret a domestic measure, it does have jurisdiction, in a reference for a preliminary ruling, to supply the national court with a ruling on the interpretation of European Union law so as to enable that court to determine whether the domestic measure is compatible with European Union law, with a view to deciding the case before it (see, to that effect, Case C-172/08 Pontina Ambiente  [2010] ECR I-1175, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).
20. Second, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of European Union law, the Court of Justice is, in principle, bound to give a ruling (see Case C-118/11 Eon Aset Menidjmunt  [2012] ECR, paragraph 76 and case-law cited). The questions referred by the national court therefore enjoy a presumption of relevance (see, to that effect, Case C-45/09 Rosenbladt  [2010] ECR I-9391, paragraph 33).
21. The presumption that questions referred by national courts for a preliminary ruling are relevant may be rebutted only in exceptional cases, where it is quite obvious that the interpretation which is sought of the provisions of European Union law referred to in the questions bears no relation to the purpose of the main action (see Case C-283/09 Weryński  [2011] ECR I-601, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).
26. That interpretation is confirmed by other language versions of the last sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 7(1) of the Eighth VAT Directive. Thus, for example, in the French version, Article 7(1) expressly provides that a refund application must be submitted ‘au plus tard’ (no later than) within six months of the end of the calendar year in which the tax became chargeable. That clarification indicates very clearly that it is no longer possible to submit a valid application after that date (see, to that effect, Case C-54/09 P Greece v Commission  [2010] ECR I-7537, paragraph 46). The same applies, inter alia, in the German (‘spätestens’) and Dutch (‘uiterlijk’) versions. Similarly, Section B of Annex C to that directive contains, at least in the German, French and Dutch versions, a similar reference which confirms that interpretation.
27. It is to be borne in mind that it is settled case-law that the different language versions of a text of European Union law must be given a uniform interpretation and hence, in the case of divergence between the language versions, the provision in question must be interpreted by reference to the purpose and general scheme of the rules of which it forms a part (see, inter alia, Case C-340/08 M and Others  [2010] ECR I-3913, paragraph 44 and case-law cited).
29. Moreover, if it were possible to make an application for the refund of excess VAT without any temporal limit, that would be contrary to the principle of legal certainty, which requires the tax position of the taxable person, having regard to his rights and obligations vis-à-vis the tax authorities, not to be open to challenge indefinitely (see Case C-472/08 Alstom Power Hydro  [2010] ECR I-623, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited).
33. Lastly, for the sake of completeness, it should be observed that, by adopting the first sentence of Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/9, the Member States extended the period in question by three months. As submitted, in essence, by the European Commission, it can be inferred from this that the Member States themselves proceeded on the basis that the time-limit in question was mandatory, there generally being no need to extend a time-limit unless its expiry brings about the forfeiture of the right which should have been exercised before the time-limit expired. The same conclusion may be drawn, a fortiori , from the fact that Article 1 of Directive 2010/66 further extended, as an exceptional measure and solely in respect of refund applications relating to a period during 2009, the time-limit for submitting such applications to 31 March 2011, in order to resolve technical problems which had arisen in 2010 in the collation of refund applications relating to the 2009 tax year by the competent authorities.