Cargill Deutschland GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld.
Date: 2019-12-19
39


The Court has held that the right to obtain a reimbursement 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 (judgments of 12 December 2006, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation, C‑446/04, EU:C:2006:774, paragraph 202; of 19 July 2012, Littlewoods Retail and Others, C‑591/10, EU:C:2012:478, paragraph 24; and of 25 July 2018, Messer France, C‑103/17, EU:C:2018:587, paragraph 56).
46


In accordance with settled case-law, 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 or time-bars, subject to observance of the principles of equivalence and effectiveness (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 34, and of 20 December 2017, Caterpillar Financial Services, C‑500/16, EU:C:2017:996, paragraph 37).
47


In order to ensure compliance with those principles, those procedural rules must not be less favourable than those concerning similar claims based on provisions of national law (principle of equivalence) or arranged in such a way as to make the exercise of rights conferred by the EU legal order practically impossible (principle of effectiveness) (see, to that effect, judgment of 27 September 2012, Zuckerfabrik Jülich and Others, C‑113/10, C‑147/10 and C‑234/10, EU:C:2012:591, paragraph 61 and the case-law cited).
49


It should be borne in mind that, under the procedure laid down in Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it. To that end, the Court may extract from all the information provided by the national court, in particular from the grounds of the decision to make the reference, the elements of EU law that require interpretation in view of the subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings (judgment of 18 December 2019, Generálny riaditeľ Sociálnej poisťovne Bratislava and Others, C-447/18, EU:C:2019:1098, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).
51


In the present context, it is appropriate to examine, first of all, the compatibility of those rules with the principle of effectiveness. It follows from settled case-law that every case in which the question arises as to whether a national procedural provision renders the application of EU law impossible or excessively difficult must be analysed by reference to the role of that provision in the procedure, its conduct and its special features, viewed as a whole, before the various national bodies. In that context, it is necessary, inter alia, to take into consideration, where relevant, the principle of the rights of the defence, the principle of legal certainty and the proper conduct of the procedure (judgments of 20 October 2016, Danqua, C‑429/15, EU:C:2016:789, paragraph 42, and of 22 February 2018, INEOS Köln, C‑572/16, EU:C:2018:100, paragraph 44).
52


As regards, in particular, limitation periods or time-bars, the Court has repeatedly held that the setting of reasonable time limits in principle satisfies the requirement of effectiveness since it constitutes an application of the fundamental principle of legal certainty which protects both the person and the administration concerned, even though the passing of such time limits is, by its nature, liable to prevent the persons concerned from asserting their rights in whole or in part (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 February 2018, INEOS Köln, C‑572/16, EU:C:2018:100, paragraphs 46 and 53 and the case-law cited). In that regard, by way of example, a 3-year limitation period under national law was considered reasonable (judgment of 8 September 2011, Q-Beef and Bosschaert, C‑89/10 and C‑96/10, EU:C:2011:555, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).