EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012CA0362
Case C-362/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) — Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Judicial protection — Principle of effectiveness — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations — Restitution of sums paid but not due — Remedies — National legislation — Curtailment of the limitation period for the applicable remedies without notice and retroactively)
Case C-362/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) — Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Judicial protection — Principle of effectiveness — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations — Restitution of sums paid but not due — Remedies — National legislation — Curtailment of the limitation period for the applicable remedies without notice and retroactively)
Case C-362/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) — Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (Judicial protection — Principle of effectiveness — Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations — Restitution of sums paid but not due — Remedies — National legislation — Curtailment of the limitation period for the applicable remedies without notice and retroactively)
OJ C 52, 22.2.2014, p. 16–17
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
22.2.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 52/16 |
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom) — Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
(Case C-362/12) (1)
(Judicial protection - Principle of effectiveness - Principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations - Restitution of sums paid but not due - Remedies - National legislation - Curtailment of the limitation period for the applicable remedies without notice and retroactively)
2014/C 52/26
Language of the case: English
Referring court
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation
Defendants: Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court of the United Kingdom — Interpretation of Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU — National taxes contrary to European Union law — Recovery of sums unduly paid — Coexistence, under national law, of two alternative causes of action open to taxpayers for the purpose of seeking repayment of sums due, one of which provides for a longer period within which an action may be brought than the other — National legislation which reduces, retroactively and without prior notice, the longer of the two limitation periods — Whether compatible with the principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and legitimate expectations.
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
In a situation in which, under national law, taxpayers have a choice between two possible causes of action as regards the recovery of tax levied in breach of European Union law, one of which benefits from a longer limitation period, the principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations preclude national legislation curtailing that limitation period without notice and retroactively; |
|
2. |
It makes no difference to the answer to the first question that, at the time when the taxpayer issued its claim, the availability of the cause of action affording the longer limitation period had been recognised only recently by a lower court and was not definitively confirmed by the highest judicial authority until later. |