Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 December 2017.Caterpillar Financial Services sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie.Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny.Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135(1)(a) — Exemptions — Taxes levied in breach of EU law — Obstacles to the refund of an overpayment of VAT — Article 4(3) TEU — Principles of equivalence, effectiveness and sincere cooperation — Rights conferred on individuals — Expiry of the limitation period for the tax liability — Effects of a judgment of the Court — Principle of legal certainty.Case C-500/16.

Judgment // 20/12/2017 // 2 min read
bookmark 16 citations

Case C‑500/16

Caterpillar Financial Services sp. z o.o.

v

Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Warszawie

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 135 (1) (a) — Exemptions — Taxes levied in breach of EU law — Obstacles to the refund of an overpayment of VAT — Article 4 (3) TEU — Principles of equivalence, effectiveness and sincere cooperation — Rights conferred on individuals — Expiry of the limitation period for the tax liability — Effects of a judgment of the Court — Principle of legal certainty)

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 20 December 2017

EU law — Direct effect — National taxes incompatible with EU law — Repayment — Procedures — Application of national law — Conditions — Respect for the principles of equivalence and effectiveness — Tax declared not payable by a judgment of the Court delivered after the expiry of the limitation period for claims for repayment — Application of that period — Lawfulness

(Art. 4(3) TEU)

The principles of equivalence and effectiveness, read in the light of Article 4 (3) TEU, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows a request for a refund of an overpayment of value added tax (VAT) to be refused where that request was submitted by the taxable person after the expiry of the five-year limitation period, although it follows from a judgment of the Court, delivered after the expiry of that period, that the payment of the VAT which is the subject of that request for a refund was not payable.

(see para. 52, operative part)