Ilie Nicolae Nicula v Administraţia Finanţelor Publice a Municipiului Sibiu and Administraţia Fondului pentru Mediu.
Date: 2014-10-15
21. In that regard, it should be noted that the Court has consistently held that, in proceedings under Article 267 TFEU, 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 EU law, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling (see, in that regard, judgments in Government of the French Community and Walloon Government , C‑212/06, EU:C:2008:178, paragraph 28; Zurita García and Choque Cabrera , C‑261/08 and C‑348/08, EU:C:2009:648, paragraph 34; and Filipiak , C‑314/08, EU:C:2009:719, paragraph 40).
22. Nevertheless, the Court has also held that, in exceptional circumstances, it may examine the conditions in which the case was referred to it by the national court, in order to confirm its own jurisdiction (see, to that effect, judgment in Filipiak , EU:C:2009:719, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited).
23. It should be noted in that regard that the Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (judgment in Zurita García and Choque Cabrera , EU:C:2009:648, paragraph 35).
27. It is apparent from the settled case-law of the Court that the right to a refund of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of rules of EU law is the consequence and complement of the rights conferred on individuals by provisions of EU law prohibiting such taxes, as interpreted by the Court. A Member State is therefore in principle required to repay charges levied in breach of EU law (judgments in Littlewoods Retail and Others , C‑591/10, EU:C:2012:478, paragraph 24, and Irimie , C‑565/11, EU:C:2013:250, paragraph 20).
28. Furthermore, the Court has previously held that, where a Member State has levied taxes in breach of the rules of EU law, individuals are entitled to reimbursement not only of the tax unduly levied but also of the amounts paid to that State or retained by it which relate directly to that tax (see, to that effect, judgments in Littlewoods Retail and Others , EU:C:2012:478, paragraph 25, and Irimie , EU:C:2013:250, paragraph 21).
29. The principle of the obligation of Member States to repay with interest amounts of tax levied in breach of EU law follows from that law (judgments in Littlewoods Retail and Others , EU:C:2012:478, paragraph 26, and Irimie , EU:C:2013:250, paragraph 22).
30. Here, it should be noted as a preliminary point that it is not clear from the order for reference on the basis of which version of the OUG the pollution tax was levied on Mr Nicula on the date of the registration of his vehicle in Romania. However, the Court has previously held that Article 110 TFEU precludes a tax such as the pollution tax introduced by OUG No 50/2008 both in its original version and as amended (see, to that effect, judgments in Tatu , EU:C:2011:219, paragraphs 58 and 61, and Nisipeanu , C‑263/10, EU:C:2011:466, paragraphs 27 and 29).
31. The Court has held that the application of the provisions of OUG No 50/2008, regardless of the version of that legislation, had the effect that imported second-hand vehicles of considerable age and wear were subject to a tax which could approach 30% of their market value, while similar vehicles offered for sale on the domestic second-hand vehicle market, which constituted similar domestic products within the meaning of Article 110 TFEU, were not burdened by such a tax charge. The Court concluded that such a measure discouraged the placing in circulation in that Member State of second-hand vehicles purchased in other Member States without discouraging buyers from purchasing second-hand vehicles of the same age and condition on the domestic market (see, to that effect, judgments in Tatu , EU:C:2011:219, paragraphs 55, 58 and 61, and Nisipeanu , EU:C:2011:466, paragraphs 26, 27 and 29).
40. In the event that the Court finds that EU law precludes a tax such as the environmental stamp duty introduced by OUG No 9/2013, the Romanian Government, in its written observations, has asked the Court to limit the temporal effects of the present judgment.
41. In that regard, it should be noted that, by the interpretation of EU law requested, the referring court is not asking the Court whether EU law precludes a tax such as the environmental stamp duty, but only whether it precludes a system such as that introduced by OUG No 9/2013 which provides for repayment of the tax unduly levied under OUG No 50/2008.
42. In those circumstances, suffice it to state that the arguments relied on by the Romanian Government in favour of a limitation of the temporal effects of the judgment of the Court relate to circumstances other than those in the main proceedings and, accordingly, that it is not necessary to rule on that Government’s request for the temporal effects of the present judgment to be limited.
Costs