Case C‑205/15

Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Brașov

v

Vasile Toma

and

Biroul Executorului Judecătoresc Horațiu-Vasile Cruduleci

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Sibiu)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Article 47 — Right of access to a court — Principle of equality of arms — Principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Proceedings for the enforcement of a judicial decision ordering the repayment of a tax levied in breach of EU law — Exemption of public authorities from certain legal costs — Jurisdiction of the Court’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 30 June 2016

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Request for interpretation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — National legal circumstances having a link to EU law — Competence of the Court upheld

   (Art. 267 TFEU; Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 51(1))

2. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Need to reformulate the questions

   (Art. 267 TFEU)

3. EU law — Principles — Right to effective judicial protection — Scope

   (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47)

4. EU law — Principles — Right to effective judicial protection — Enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union — Proceedings for the enforcement of a judicial decision ordering the repayment of a tax levied in breach of EU law — National legislation exempting legal persons governed by public law from certain judicial fees and imposing them on private persons only — Lawfulness

   (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 22-24, 27, 28)

2.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 30)

3.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 40-44, 47)

4.  Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which exempts legal persons governed by public law from judicial stamping fees when they lodge an objection to the enforcement of a judicial decision relating to the repayment of taxes levied in breach of EU law and exempts those persons from the obligation to lodge a security at the time of bringing an application for a stay of such enforcement proceedings, while the applications submitted by legal and natural persons governed by private law in the context of such procedures remain, in principle, subject to court costs.

   In that context, in the first place, the court costs contribute, in principle, to the proper functioning of the judicial system, since such costs constitute a source of funding the judicial activities of the Member States. The exemption from the court stamping fees, established by such national legislation, enjoyed by legal persons governed by public law in such national procedures does not secure by itself a procedural advantage for those legal persons since the payment of those fees by such persons is attributed to the consolidated national budget, which also finances the services provided by the courts.

   As regards, in the second place, the exemption from lodging a security required at the time of bringing an application for a stay of such enforcement proceedings which legal persons governed by public law enjoy, Member States are required under EU law to repay, with interest, taxes levied in breach of EU law. Consequently, it is inconceivable that a Member State may rely on a lack of funds in order to justify the impossibility of executing a judicial decision that recognises an individual’s right to repayment of taxes levied in breach of EU law, together with interest. The risk covered by the security cannot materialise in a procedure where the defendant is a legal person governed by public law.

   Accordingly, such legislation does not place legal and natural persons governed by public law in a clearly less advantageous position compared with their opponents, legal persons governed by public law, and therefore does not call into question the fairness of that procedure.

   (see paras 49-53, 54, 59, operative part)