Eamonn Donnellan v The Revenue Commissioners.
Date: 2018-04-26
41


While coming within the area of the internal market, and not that of freedom, security and justice, Directive 2010/24 is also based on the principle of mutual trust referred to above. The implementation of the system of mutual assistance established by that directive depends on the existence of such trust between the national authorities concerned.
43


Moreover, it follows from Article 14(1) of Directive 2010/24 that any contestation of that claim, initial instrument, uniform instrument or notification made by a competent authority of the applicant Member State must be brought before the competent bodies of that Member State and not before those of the requested Member State.
44


Far from giving the bodies of the requested Member State the power to review the acts of the applicant Member State, Article 14(2) of Directive 2010/24 explicitly limits the power of review of those bodies to acts of the requested Member State.
45


Even though the acts taken by Member States pursuant to the system of mutual assistance established by Directive 2010/24 must be in accordance with the fundamental rights of the European Union, which include the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter, it does not in any way follow that the acts of the applicant Member State must be capable of being challenged both before the courts of that Member State and before those of the requested Member State. On the contrary, that system of mutual assistance, as it is based, in particular, on the principle of mutual trust, increases legal certainty with regard to the determination of the Member State in which disputes are settled and thus makes it possible to avoid forum shopping (see, by analogy, judgment of 21 November 2011, N.S. and Others, C‑411/10 and C‑493/10, EU:C:2011:865, paragraph 79).
47


By contrast, as the Court has previously held, it cannot be ruled out that the requested authority may, exceptionally, decide not to grant its assistance to the applicant authority. Enforcement of the request for recovery of the claim may thus, inter alia, be refused if it is shown that such enforcement is liable to be contrary to the public policy of the Member State of the requested authority (see, with regard to Article 12 of Directive 76/308, to which, in essence, Article 14 of Directive 2010/24 corresponds, judgment of 14 January 2010, Kyrian, C‑233/08, EU:C:2010:11, paragraph 42).
48


In this regard, it is important to point out that, in accordance with Article 13(1) of Directive 2010/24, the claim in respect of which a request for recovery has been made is to be treated as if it were a claim of the requested Member State, that latter Member State being thus required to make use of the powers and procedures provided for under the laws, regulations or administrative provisions applying to claims concerning identical or similar taxes or duties in its legal system. It is difficult to imagine that an instrument permitting enforcement of an identical or similar claim of the requested Member State would be enforced by that State if that enforcement were liable to be contrary to its own public policy (see, by analogy, with regard to Directive 76/308, judgment of 14 January 2010, Kyrian, C‑233/08, EU:C:2010:11, paragraph 43).
49


That being said, it is for the Court to review the limits within which the authorities of a Member State may refuse, by reference to national views such as those relating to the public policy of that State, to grant their assistance to another Member State within the context of a system of cooperation established by the EU legislature (see, to that effect, judgments of 28 April 2009, Apostolides, C‑420/07, EU:C:2009:271, paragraphs 56 and 57, and of 25 May 2016, Meroni, C‑559/14, EU:C:2016:349, paragraphs 39 and 40).
50


It has also consistently been held that limitations on the principle of mutual trust must be interpreted strictly (see, inter alia, judgments of 14 November 2013, Baláž, C‑60/12, EU:C:2013:733, paragraph 29; of 16 July 2015, Diageo Brands, C‑681/13, EU:C:2015:471, paragraph 41; of 25 May 2016, Meroni, C‑559/14, EU:C:2016:349, paragraph 38; and of 23 January 2018, Piotrowski, C‑367/16, EU:C:2018:27, paragraph 48).
54


Next, it should be noted that the system of mutual assistance for the recovery of claims seeks, inter alia, to ensure the effective notification of all instruments and decisions which emanate from the Member State in which the applicant authority is situated and which relate to a claim or to its recovery (see, with regard to Directive 76/308, judgment of 14 January 2010, Kyrian, C‑233/08, EU:C:2010:11, paragraph 57). Article 8 of Directive 2010/24 provides, in that regard, for the possibility for the authority which issued the claim to seek assistance, from the competent authority in the Member State of residence of the person concerned, with the notification of the documents relating to that claim.
55


Lastly, it should be noted that, in order to be able to exercise his right to an effective legal remedy, within the meaning of Article 47 of the Charter, against a decision adversely affecting his interests, the person concerned must know the reasons upon which the decision taken in relation to him is based, either by reading the decision itself or by requesting and obtaining notification of those reasons, in order that he may defend his rights in the best possible conditions and decide, with full knowledge of the relevant facts, whether there is any point in his applying to the court with jurisdiction (judgment of 4 June 2013, ZZ, C‑300/11, EU:C:2013:363, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited).
58


Moreover, this interpretation is supported by Article 47 of the Charter and by the case-law of the Court concerning the service and notification of judicial documents. It follows in particular from that case-law that, in order to ensure respect for the rights laid down in Article 47 of the Charter, it is important not only to ensure that the addressee of a document actually receives the document in question but also that he is able to know and understand effectively and completely the meaning and scope of the action brought against him abroad, so as to be able effectively to assert his rights in the Member State of transmission (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 September 2015, Alpha Bank Cyprus, C‑519/13, EU:C:2015:603, paragraphs 31 and 32 and the case-law cited). Such considerations are also relevant in the context of Directive 2010/24.