Roquette Frères SA contra Direction des services fiscaux du Pas-de-Calais.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 61999CJ0088
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2000:652
• Date: 28 November 2000
• Docket Number: C-88/99
• Writing for the Court: Wathelet
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 November 2000. - Roquette Frères SA v Direction des services fiscaux du Pas-de-Calais. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Tribunal de grande instance de Bethune - France. - Recovery of sums paid but not due - National procedural rules - Capital duty levied in respect of a merger. - Case C-88/99.

European Court reports 2000 Page I-10465

Summary Parties Grounds Decision on costs Operative part

Keywords

Community law - Direct effect - National charges incompatible with Community law - Repayment - Procedures - Application of national law - Limitation periods - Whether permissible - Conditions - Observance of the principle of effectiveness of Community law - Observance of the principle of equivalence of conditions for actions for recovery with those for similar claims under domestic law

Summary

$$In the absence of Community rules on reimbursement of national charges levied though not due, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts and tribunals having jurisdiction and to determine the procedural conditions governing legal proceedings for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from the direct effect of Community law, it being understood that such rules cannot be less favourable than those governing similar actions of a domestic nature (principle of equivalence), and may not make it impossible or excessively difficult in practice to exercise rights which national courts have a duty to protect (principle of effectiveness).

First, as regards the principle of effectiveness, the establishment 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. 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. In that respect, a national limitation period of up to a minimum of 4 years and a maximum of 5 years preceding the year of the judicial decision finding the rule of national law establishing the tax to be incompatible with a superior rule of law must be considered reasonable.

Secondly, observance of the principle of equivalence implies that the national procedure applies without distinction to actions alleging infringements of Community law and to those alleging infringements 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. Thus, Community law does not in principle preclude the legislation of a Member State from laying down, alongside a limitation period applicable under the ordinary law to actions between private 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 charges and other levies. The position would be different only if those detailed rules applied solely to actions based on Community law for the repayment of such charges or levies.

It follows that Community law does not preclude legislation of a Member State laying down that, in tax matters, an action for recovery of a sum paid but not due based on a finding by a national or Community court that a national rule is not compatible with a superior rule of national law or with a Community rule of law may only relate to the period following 1 January of the fourth year preceding that of the judgment establishing such incompatibility.

( see paras 20-24, 29-30, 37 and operative part )

Parties

In Case C-88/99,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Béthune, France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between

Roquette Frères SA

and

Direction des Services Fiscaux du Pas-de-Calais,

to ascertain whether Community law prohibits national tax legislation which provides that an action for recovery of a sum paid but not due, based on a judicial decision declaring a rule of law incompatible with a higher-ranking rule, may relate only to the period following 1 January of the fourth year preceding that of the judgment establishing such incompatibility,

THE COURT (First Chamber),

composed of: M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges,

Advocate General: D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,

Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

- Roquette Frères SA, by J. Dutat, of the Lille Bar,

- the French Government, by K. Rispal-Bellanger, Head of Subdirectorate in the Legal Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and S. Seam, Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the same directorate, acting as Agents,

- the Italian Government, by U. Leanza, Head of the Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, assisted by G. De Bellis, Avvocato dello Stato,

- the Commission of the European Communities, by E. Mennens, Principal Legal Adviser, and H. Michard, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Roquette Frères SA, the French and Italian Governments and the Commission at the hearing on 6 April 2000,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 11 May 2000,

gives the following

Judgment

Grounds

1 By judgment of 24 March 1998, received at the Court on 15 March 1999, the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Béthune referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) a question in order to ascertain whether Community law prohibits national tax legislation which provides that an action for recovery of a sum paid but not due, based on a judicial decision declaring a rule of law incompatible with a higher-ranking rule, may relate only to the period following 1 January of the fourth year preceding that of the judgment establishing such incompatibility.

2 That question was raised in the context of a dispute between Roquette Frères SA (Roquette) and the tax authorities concerning the registration duty on contributions of movable assets made by that company in 1987...