Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62013CN0654

Case C-654/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 10 December 2013 — Delphi Hungary Autóalkatrész Gyártó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV)

OJ C 85, 22.3.2014, p. 10–11 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.3.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/10


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság (Hungary) lodged on 10 December 2013 — Delphi Hungary Autóalkatrész Gyártó Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV)

(Case C-654/13)

2014/C 85/18

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Szombathelyi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Delphi Hungary Autóalkatrész Gyártó Kft.

Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Nyugat-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága (NAV)

Questions referred

1.

Must Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in particular Article 186 thereof, Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness be interpreted as meaning that they preclude legislation and practice of a Member State which prevent the payment of default interest on amounts of value added tax which could not be claimed under legislation which the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled to be contrary to Community law, although in other cases the Member State’s legislation provides for the payment of interest in the event of the delayed repayment of value added tax which can be claimed back?

2.

Is the practice of a Member State’s courts contrary to the principles of effectiveness and equivalence insofar as it refuses to allow claims made in administrative proceedings — thus limiting the options available to a legal person who has suffered loss to an action for damages, despite the fact that such an action is excluded in practice in the national legal order — merely because there is no specific legal rule which is applicable on the facts in the proceedings although [dealing with and] paying similar claims for interest falls within the powers of the tax authority?

3.

If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, are the courts of the Member State required to interpret and apply in accordance with Community law legal rules of the Member State which are not applicable on the facts, so that equivalent and effective judicial protection can be provided?

4.

Must the Community law cited in the first question be interpreted as meaning that [a claim for] interest on taxes collected, retained and not repaid in breach of Community law constitutes an individual right which derives directly from Community law and may be relied on directly before the courts and administrative authorities of the Member State pursuant to Community law, including where the law of the Member State does not provide for the payment of interest in that specific case, it being sufficient, in order to justify a claim for interest, to show that Community law has been breached and that the tax has been collected, retained or not repaid?


(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.


Top