C-240/87
ECLI:EU:C:1988:277
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61987CC0240
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
DEVILLE v ADMINISTRATION DES IMPÔTS
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL SIR GORDON SLYNN delivered on 31 May 1988
My Lords, and the vehicles which had been subject to it were brought within the differential tax, the rates of which were adjusted to cover those more powerful cars. (The method of calcu lation of the differential tax on those cars was in its turn found to be discriminatory Until 1985 there were two types of annual and was ruled contrary to Article 95 by the tax on motor vehicles in France: first, a Court in its judgment of 17 September 1987 differential, progressive tax charged on in Case 433/85 Feldain v Directeur des vehicles rated for tax purposes at 16 CV services fiscaux [1987] ECR 3521, but that (fiscal horsepower) or less and, secondly, a tax is not in issue in these proceedings.) special tax charged at a single rate on Article 18 of Law No 85-695 also made vehicles rated at more than 16 CV. The provision for the recovery of the difference special tax was introduced in 1956 and between the old special tax and the new repeatedly amended in subsequent years, differential tax. The first paragraph of both as to its structure and as to its amount, Article 18-V lays down the conditions for but its amount was at all times considerably the settlement of pending claims and no higher than the highest rate of differential reference is made to any time limitation. As tax. In 1985 it was apparently almost five to claims made after the date of the times higher. Humblot judgment the second paragraph of Article 18-V provides:
No French-made car was rated for tax purposes at more than 16 CV. Accordingly the special tax was borne only by imported 'Taxpayers who submit a claim after 9 May cars, including cars imported from other 1985 may obtain a tax refund determined Member States, whilst all French-made cars under the same conditions if the claim is remained taxed at the lower rates under the made within the time-limit laid down in differential tax. In its judgment of 9 May Article R 196-1-b of the Tax Procedure 1985 in Case 112/84 Humblot v Directeur Code (livre des procédures fiscales), which des services fiscaux [1985] ECR 1367, the begins to run from the date on which the Court ruled that such a system of taxation special tax was paid.' was discriminatory and prohibited by Article 95 of the EEC Treaty.
By Article 18 of French Law No 85-695 of Article R 196-1 of the Tax Procedure Code 11 July 1985 the special tax was abolished provides so far as relevant:
OPINION OF SIR GORDON SLYNN — CASE 240/87
'To be admissible, claims must be submitted paragraph of Article 18-V of Law No to the administration not later than 31 85-695 by reference to Article R 196-1-b of December of the second year following the the Tax Procedure Code took away his year, as the case may be, rights under Community law and deprived the Humblot judgment of its effect in his case. The French tax authorities contended that Article 18-V was valid and applicable in (a) ... ; his case. The tribunal de grande instance accordingly has referred the following question to the Court for a preliminary (b) in which the contested tax was paid; ruling:
(c) in which the event which gave rise to 'Is it in conformity with the general prin the claim occurred.' ciples of Community law to impose a time- limit, as does the second paragraph of Article 18-V of Law No 85-695 of 11 July 1985, on the effects of the retroactive On 10 December 1982, Mr Christian abolition of the special tax on vehicles Deville of Bachy, France, paid the special exceeding 16 CV which was declared tax to the French tax authorities in respect contrary to the provisions of Article 95 of of a Ferrari motor car made in another the Treaty of Rome by the judgment of the Member State and rated for tax purposes in Court of 9 May 1985 in Case 112/84?' France at more than 16 CV. On 31 December 1985, some seven months after the judgment in Humblot, he claimed reim bursement of the difference between that special tax and the differential tax. By a Mr Deville argues that a preliminary ruling decision of 6 June 1986 the authorities by the Court of Justice on a rule of rejected his claim on the ground that it was Community law establishes the effect of the out of time, on the basis that under Article rule from the time of its entry into force on R 196-1-b of the Tax Procedure Code the both past and future legal relationships and claim should have been submitted by 31 that Member States are not entitled to limit December 1984 at the latest. such effect in time as was done by the second paragraph of Article 18-V. Accordingly he submits that the answer to the question referred should be that the On 21 August 1986 Mr Deville challenged Court's judgment in Humblot imposes an that decision by an action brought before obligation on the French State to refund the the tribunal de grande instance, Lille. Mr amount of the special tax for the entire Deville argued that he was entitled to rely period of its application. on Article R 196-1-c of the Tax Procedure Code , whereby the period starts to run from the occurrence of the event which gave rise to the claim, that the Court's judgment in The French Government relies on the Humblot constituted an event within the Court's case law whereby, in the absence of meaning of that provision, and that his harmonizing measures by the Community claim having been made within less than legislator, the procedural rules governing two years of Humblot was in time. The actions for the recovery of national charges time-limit laid down in the second levied in breach of Community law have to
DEVILLE v ADMINISTRATION DES IMPÔTS
be determined by the domestic legal system Community law, the Court's judgment of each Member State. It submits that the governs all national measures and individual answer to the question referred should be transactions subject to that rule, whether that Community law does not preclude a taking place before or after the date of the time-limit being imposed in respect of the judgment: e. g. Case 61/79 Amministrazione right to bring proceedings for a refund since delle Finanze dello Stato v Denkavit italiana it is for each Member State to fix the [1980] ECR 1205, recently confirmed at conditions under which reimbursement of paragraph 11 of the judgment of 2 February taxes which have been declared incom 1988 in Case 309/85 Barra v Belgian State patible with Community law may be sought. [1988] ECR 355. Exceptionally, the Court, and only the Court, may limit the temporal effect of its ruling so that it should apply only for the future: Case 43/75 Defrenne v Sabena [1976] ECR 455; Denkavit; Barra, The Irish Government contends that the paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment. The question referred should be answered in the Humblot ruling has not been limited in that affirmative, i. e. to the effect that the impo way. Accordingly, it applies to legal sition of a time-limit, such as that in the relationships arising and established before second paragraph of Article 18-V, is in it was delivered. Thus in principle it applies conformity with Community law given that to payments of the special tax on motor the Council has not adopted any relevant vehicles rated at more than 16 CV made harmonizing measures, and that on the basis before 9 May 1985. Such payments are of Case 33/76 Rewe v Landwirtschaft- contrary to Article 95 of the EEC Treaty skammer Saarland [1976] ECR 1989 there is even though made before the date of the no requirement under Community law to Humblot judgment. reopen or extend limitation periods for reclaiming tax which have expired under national law.
The Commission stresses that, although in the present state of Community law the procedure for the recovery of national taxes It is, however, also well established that the charged in breach of Community law is procedural conditions governing actions for governed by national law, the national rules recovery of national taxes charged contrary must not make it impossible in practice to to Community law are determined by the exercise rights derived from Community domestic legal system of each Member State law. French Law No 85-695 infringes that in the absence of Community rules on the rule because the two-year limit it imposes matter, subject to two provisos. First, the deprives the Court's judgment in Humblot, procedural conditions imposed by national which did not limit the scope of its law on actions for the recovery of national application, of its effectiveness. taxes charged in breach of Community law may not be less favourable than those relating to similar actions of a domestic nature and, secondly, the conditions must not make it impossible in practice to The starting point, as I see it, is that when exercise the Community law rights which the Court gives a ruling under Article 177 as the national courts are obliged to protect: to the interpretation and scope of a rule of see Case 33/76 Rewe, cited above.
OPINION OF SIR GORDON SLYNN — CASE 240/87
Where either of those provisos are the date of the Court's judgment in infringed, the national procedural rules are Humblot. It does, however, limit such claims not consistent with Community law. Thus to those made within the period prescribed the Court has ruled incompatible with in Article R 196-1-b and it does not seem to Community law national rules of evidence me to matter whether Article 18-V is seen as which are arranged in such a way as to the imposition of a new limitation period or, make impossible or excessively difficult the as I consider, as a limitation to one of the pursuit of an action for the recovery of pre-existing general limitation periods. national taxes charged in breach of Community law: see Case 199/82 Amminis- trazione delle Finanze dello Stato v San Giorgio [1983] ECR 3595; confirmed by the judgment of 25 February 1988 in Joined Cases 331, 376 and 378/85 Les fils de Jules Bianco v Directeur general des douanes [1988] It seems to me that, if a national court finds ECR 1099, and by the judgment of 24 that under national law existing at the date March 1988 in Case 104/86 Commission v of the Humblot judgment the provision in Italy [1988] ECR 1799. Similarly, a Article R 196-1-b was the only relevant time-limit under national legislation which limitation period, then such a provision as deprives individuals of the right to obtain that adopted by Article 18-V of Law No reimbursement of sums paid contrary to 85-695 is not incompatible with Community Community law is inconsistent with law. As the Court held in Case 33/76 Rewe, Community law and cannot be relied on the fixing of reasonable periods of limitation against claimants: Barra, where the Court does not make it impossible in practice to found (at paragraph 19) that a legislative exercise Community law rights which the provision which limited reimbursement national courts are obliged to respect. solely to claimants who had brought an action for reimbursement prior to the delivery of the Gravier judgment of 13 February 1985 ([1985] ECR 593) deprived individuals who had not brought such actions of the right to obtain repayment of sums paid which were not due to be paid and made it impossible for them to exercise A limitation period is justified in the the rights conferred by the EEC Treaty. interests of legal certainty: the period Accordingly the Court ruled that the prescribed by Article R 196-1-b cannot in national court, which was obliged to apply my view be said to be unreasonable. If that Community law fully and to protect the was the only relevant period then Article rights which that law conferred upon indi 18-V has not taken away any existing rights. viduals, was precluded from applying such a provision of national law.
On the other hand, I consider that national legislation, adopted subsequent to a ruling of the Court, which affects pre-existing Article 18-V of Law No 85-695 does not, as limitation periods and cuts down the effect did the legislative provision referred to in of the Court's judgment is incompatible Barra, limit claims to those already made at with Community law.
DEVILLE v ADMINISTRATION DES IMPÔTS
It seems to me here that there may have Chambéry on 11 June 1987 in Gorlier v been an intention on the part of the legis Servicesfiscaux(Gazette du Palais, 17 and 19 lature to limit the effect of the judgment in January 1988, pp. 12 and 13), he could have Humblot. The 'amendment' introduced by relied on the 30-year limitation period Article 18 was specifically explained in the prescribed by the Civil Code, then Article Assemblée Nationale as being introduced to 18-V has purported to cut down his rights limit the eventual financial consequences of and to limit the effect of the Humblot Humblot (2nd session of 20 June 1985). judgment. Put another way, it makes it impossible for him in practice to exercise rights under Community law which national The relevant question is, however, whether courts are bound to protect. In either Article 18-V had that effect. If, as Mr eventuality the purported restriction is Deville contends, but for Article 18-V he invalid as being contrary to Community could have relied on Article R 196-1-c of law, and cannot be relied on in national the Tax Procedure Code, as part of the courts against claims for the reimbursement general law, or if, as appears to have been of national charges levied contrary to held by the tribunal de grande instance of Article 95 of the Treaty.
Accordingly, in my opinion, the question referred for a preliminary ruling should be answered along the following lines:
'It is not in conformity with the general principles of Community law to impose a time-limit, as does the second paragraph of Article 18-V of Law No 85-695 of 11 July 1985, subsequent to a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice establishing that a national tax is contrary to the Treaty if that time-limit is shorter than the time-limit which would otherwise apply under the law of the Member State concerned as it stood at the time of the Court's ruling.'
The costs of the French Government, the Irish Government and the Commission are not recoverable. Mr Deville's costs fall to be dealt with by the national court.