Tilbagebetalingen til Marks & Spencer af 1 913 462 GBP blev foretaget den 15. januar 1997. Marks & Spencer indgav en klage til Commissioners over afgørelsen om at anvende forældelsesfristen på tre år på selskabets krav, men Commissioners fastholdt sin afgørelse. Det skal indledningsvis bemærkes, at det fremgår af forelæggelseskendelsen, at Court of Appeal finder, at sjette direktivs artikel 11, punkt A, stk. 1, er ubetinget og tilstrækkelig præcist formuleret, og at Marks & Spencer således på grundlag heraf tillægges rettigheder, som selskabet kan påberåbe sig ved de nationale domstole, men kun for så vidt angår den periode, hvori den nævnte bestemmelse endnu ikke var gennemført korrekt i national ret i Det Forenede Kongerige, dvs. perioden før den 1. august 1992. Den forelæggende ret har derfor begrænset sit spørgsmål til det tilfælde, hvor en medlemsstat ikke har gennemført sjette direktivs artikel 11, punkt A, korrekt. Den 15. april 1997 indbragte Marks & Spencer afslaget for VAT and Duties Tribunal, London (Det Forenede Kongerige), der frifandt Commissioners ved dom af 22. april 1998. Marks & Spencer appellerede denne afgørelse til High Court of Justice (England og Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Crown Office) (Det Forenede Kongerige), som forkastede appellen ved afgørelse af 21. december 1998, hvilken Marks & Spencer herefter appellerede til Court of Appeal. Den forelæggende ret har således lagt til grund, at det forhold, at en medlemsstat har gennemført et direktivs bestemmelser — såsom sjette direktivs artikel 11, punkt A, stk. 1 — korrekt i national ret, fratager borgerne muligheden for ved medlemsstatens domstole at påberåbe sig de rettigheder, som i givet fald tilkommer dem i henhold til disse bestemmelser.
The corresponding repayment of £1 913 462 was made to Marks & Spencer on 15 January 1997. Marks & Spencer requested an internal review of the decision of the Commissioners to apply the three-year limitation period to its claim. The Commissioners maintained their position. 11A(1) of the Sixth Directive is unconditional and sufficiently precise and that it therefore gives Marks & Spencer rights on which it may rely before a national court, albeit only as regards the period during which that provision had not yet been correctly implemented in the domestic law of the United Kingdom, that is to say, before 1 August 1992. That is why the Court of Appeal limited its question to the case where a Member State has not properly implemented Article IIA of the Sixth Directive. On 15 April 1997 Marks & Spencer challenged that decision before the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London, which dismissed Marks & Spencer's application on 22 April 1998. Marks & Spencer appealed to the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division, which dismissed the appeal by decision of 21 December 1998. Marks & Spencer then appealed to the Court of Appeal. The referring court proceeded on the premiss that if a Member State has correctly implemented the provisions of a directive, such as Article 11A(1) of the Sixth Directive, in domestic law, individuals are thereby deprived of the possibility of relying before the courts of that Member State on the rights which they may derive from those provisions.