Roquette Frères SA v Direction des services fiscaux du Pas-de-Calais.
Date: 2000-11-28
6 In Joined Cases C-197/94 and C-252/94 Bautiaa and Société Française Maritime [1996] ECR I-505, the Court held that that charge, which was provided for at the time in the second subparagraph of Article 816-I of the Code Général des Impôts, constituted a capital duty within the meaning of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412).
18 It is established case-law that, in the procedure laid down by Article 177 of the Treaty providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the referring court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it (Case C-334/95 Krüger v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas [1997] ECR I-4517, paragraph 22). To that end the Court of Justice may have to reformulate the question referred to it (Krüger, cited above, paragraph 23).
20 In that context, it must be remembered that, in the absence of Community rules concerning the refunding of domestic taxes which have been wrongly levied, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts having jurisdiction and to determine the procedural conditions governing legal proceedings seeking to safeguard the rights which citizens derive from the direct effect of Community law, it being understood that such conditions cannot be less favourable than those relating to similar actions of a domestic nature, and may not make it impossible in practice to exercise rights which the national courts have a duty to protect (Case 33/76 REWE v Landwirtschaftskammer für das Saarland [1976] ECR 1989, paragraph 5; Case 45/76 Comet v Produktschap voor Siergewassen [1976] ECR 2043, paragraphs 13 and 16; Case 61/79 Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v Denkavit Italiana [1980] ECR 1205, paragraph 25; and Case 240/87 Deville v Administration des impôts [1988] ECR 3513, paragraph 12).
21 The Court has held, in particular, that for reparation of loss or damage the conditions relating to time-limits laid down by national law must not be less favourable than those relating to similar domestic claims (principle of equivalence) and must not be so framed as to make it virtually impossible or excessively difficult to obtain reparation (principle of effectiveness) (Case C-261/95 Palmisani v INPS [1997] ECR I-4025, paragraph 27). Such a rule also applies to recovery of sums paid but not due.
22 As regards, first, the compatibility of a time-limit of the kind provided for in the third paragraph of Article L190 of the Livre des Procédures Fiscales with the principle of the effectiveness of Community law, it must be stated that the setting of reasonable limitation periods for bringing proceedings satisfies that requirement in principle, inasmuch as it constitutes an application of the fundamental principle of legal certainty (see, in particular, REWE, paragraph 5; Comet, paragraphs 17 and 18; and Palmisani, paragraph 28, all cited above).
23 In that regard, the Court has held that such limitation periods cannot be regarded as rendering virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law, even if the expiry of those periods necessarily entails the dismissal, in whole or in part, of the action brought (Case C-188/95 Fantask and Others v Industriministeriet [1997] ECR I-6783, paragraph 48).
29 In that connection, it should be recalled that, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice, observance of the principle of equivalence implies that the national procedure applies without distinction to actions alleging infringement of Community law and to those alleging infringement of national law, with respect to the same kind of charges or dues. That principle cannot, however, be interpreted as obliging a Member State to extend its most favourable rules of limitation to all actions for repayment of charges or dues levied in breach of Community law (see Case C-231/96 Edis v Ministero delle Finanze [1998] ECR I-4951, paragraph 36; Case C-260/96 SPAC v Ministero delle Finanze [1998] ECR I-4997, paragraph 20; and Case C-228/96 Aprile v Administrazione delle Finanze dello Stato [1998] ECR I-7141, paragraph 20).
30 Thus, Community law does not in principle preclude legislation of a Member State laying down, alongside a limitation period applicable under the ordinary law to actions between individuals for the recovery of sums paid but not due, special detailed rules, which are less favourable, governing claims and legal proceedings to challenge the imposition of taxes and other charges (see Edis, cited above, paragraph 37; SPAC, cited above, paragraph 21; Joined Cases C-10/97 to C-22/97 Ministero delle Finanze v In.Co.Ge.'90 and Others [1998] ECR I-6307, paragraph 27; and Aprile, cited above, paragraph 21). The position would be different only if those detailed rules applied solely to actions based on Community law for the repayment of such taxes or charges (judgments cited above in Edis, paragraph 37; Spac, paragraph 21; and Aprile, paragraph 21).
33 It is true that in paragraph 23 of Emmott, cited above, the Court held that, until such time as a directive has been properly transposed, a defaulting Member State may not rely on an individual's delay in initiating proceedings against it in order to protect rights conferred on him by the provisions of a directive and that a period laid down by national law within which proceedings must be initiated cannot begin to run before that time.
34 However, as was confirmed by the Court in paragraph 26 of Case C-410/92 Johnson v Chief Adjudication Officer [1994] ECR I-5483, it is clear from the judgment in Case C-338/91 Steenhorst-Neerings v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor Detailhandel, Ambachten en Huisvrouwen [1993] ECR I-5475 that the approach adopted in Emmott was justified by the particular circumstances of that case, in which a time-bar had the result of depriving the plaintiff in the main proceedings of any opportunity whatever to rely on her right to equal treatment under a Community directive (see also Case C-90/94 Haahr Petroleum v Åbenrå Havn and Others [1997] ECR I-4085, paragraph 52; Joined Cases C-114/95 and C-115/95 Texaco and Olieselskabet Danmark [1997] ECR I-4263, paragraph 48; Joined Cases C-279/96, C-280/96 and C-281/96 Ansaldo Energia and Others [1998] ECR I-5025, paragraph 20; Spac, cited above, paragraph 29; and Fantask, cited above, paragraph 51).
35 Roquette claims that the Court has already declared unlawful, in Bautiaa, cited above, the application of a limitation period such as that laid down in the third paragraph of Article L190 of the Livre des Procédures Fiscales to actions seeking repayment of capital duty levied pursuant to Article 816-1 of the Code Général des Impôts, inasmuch as it held, in paragraph 49 of that case, that there was no need to derogate from the principle that a ruling on the interpretation of Community law takes effect from the date on which the rule interpreted entered into force, and accordingly refused to limit in time the effects of the judgment.
36 In that regard, it must be observed that the fact that the Court has given a preliminary ruling interpreting a provision of Community law without limiting the temporal effects of its judgment does not affect the right of a Member State to impose a time-limit under national law within which, on penalty of being barred, proceedings for repayment of charges levied in breach of that provision must be commenced (Edis, cited above, paragraph 26).