«(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Construction contrary to Community law of national legislation by case-law and administrative practice – Conditions for the recovery of sums paid though not due)»

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 3 June 2003

Judgment of the Court, 9 December 2003

Summary of the Judgment

Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations – Liability – Extent – Constitutionally independent institutions

(Art. 226 EC)

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Assessment of the scope of the provisions impugned – Taking into account of the interpretation by the courts of the Member State in question – Criteria

(Art. 226 EC)

Community law – Direct effect – National charges incompatible with Community law – Repayment – Arrangements – Application of national law – Maintenance by a Member State of legislation whose construction by case-law and administrative practice makes exercise of the right to repayment excessively difficult – Failure to fulfil obligations

A Member State's failure to fulfil obligations may, in principle, be established under Article 226 EC whatever the agency of that State whose action or inaction is the cause of the failure to fulfil its obligations, even in the case of a constitutionally independent institution. see para. 29

For the purposes of an action, under Article 226 EC, for a declaration of a Member State's failure to fulfil obligations, the scope of national laws, regulations or administrative provisions of that Member State must be assessed in the light of the interpretation given to them by national courts. In that regard, isolated or numerically insignificant judicial decisions in the context of case-law taking a different direction, or still more a construction disowned by the national supreme court, cannot be taken into account. That is not true of a widely-held judicial construction which has not been disowned by the supreme court, but rather confirmed by it. Where national legislation has been the subject of different relevant judicial constructions, some leading to the application of that legislation in compliance with Community law, others leading to the opposite application, it must be held that, at the very least, such legislation is not sufficiently clear to ensure its application in compliance with Community law. see paras 30, 32-33

A Member State fails to fulfil its Treaty obligations if it maintains in force legislation relating to the repayment of indirect charges levied in breach of Community rules, which excludes such repayment if the charges have been passed on to third parties and which is construed and applied by the administrative authorities and a substantial proportion of the courts, including the national supreme court, in such a way that the exercise of the right to repayment is made excessively difficult for the taxpayer, because

the reasoning deployed by the case-law in question is based on a premiss which is a mere presumption, namely that indirect taxes are in principle passed on by subsequent sales by economic operators where they have the chance;

the failure to produce the accounting documents of the undertaking seeking the repayment is, by itself, sufficient for it to be presumed that those charges have been passed on to third parties;

the authorities consider that the passing on of a charge is established if the amount thereof has not been accounted for, from the year of its payment, as a payment to the public purse for undue tax, and credited as an asset in the balance-sheet of the undertaking. see paras 35, 37-39, 41, operative part

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Full Court) 9 December 2003 (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Construction contrary to Community law of national legislation by case-law and administrative practice – Conditions for the recovery of sums paid though not due))

In Case C-129/00,

Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Traversa, acting as Agent, and P. Biavati, avvocato, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

applicant,

Italian Republic, represented by I.M. Braguglia, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by maintaining in force Article 29(2) of Law No 428 of 29 December 1990 entitled Disposizioni per l'adempimento di obblighi derivanti dall'appartenenza dell'Italia alle Comunità europee (legge comunitaria per il 1990) (Provisions for the fulfilment of obligations deriving from Italy's membership of the European Communities (Community law for 1990)) (GURI, Ordinary Supplement No 10 of 12 January 1991, p. 5) which, as construed and applied by the administrative authorities and the courts, allows rules of evidence in relation to the passing on to third parties of the amount of charges levied in breach of Community rules which make exercise of the right to repayment of such charges virtually impossible or, at least, excessively difficult for the taxpayer, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty,

THE COURT (Full Court),

composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and A. Rosas, (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges,

Advocate General: L.A. Geelhoed, Registrar: L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing, after hearing oral argument from the parties at the hearing on 2 April 2003, after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 3 June 2003,

gives the following

By application lodged at the Court Registry on 4 April 2000, the Commission of the European Communities brought an action under Article 226 EC for a declaration that, by maintaining in force Article 29(2) of Law No 428 of 29 December 1990 entitled Disposizioni per l'adempimento di obblighi derivanti dall'appartenenza dell'Italia alle Comunità europee (legge comunitaria per il 1990) (Provisions for the fulfilment of obligations deriving from Italy's membership of the European Communities (Community law for 1990), (GURI No 10 of 12 January 1991, Ordinary Supplement, p. 5; hereinafter Law No 428/1990) which, as construed and applied by the administrative authorities and the courts, allows rules of evidence in relation to the passing on to third parties of the amount of charges levied in breach of Community rules which make exercise of the right to repayment of such charges virtually impossible or, at least, excessively difficult for the taxpayer, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty.

National law

Law No 428/1990 introduced into tax legislation special rules in respect of repayment of taxes recognised to be incompatible with the Community rules. Article 29(2) thereof provides in that regard: Customs import duties, manufacturing taxes, consumption taxes, the tax on sugar and State duties levied under national provisions incompatible with Community legislation shall be repaid unless the amount thereof has been passed on to others.

Previously, that question was governed by the first paragraph of Article 19 of Decree-Law No 688 of 30 September 1982 (GURI No 270 of 30 September 1982, p. 7072), converted into law by Law No 873 of 27 November 1982 (GURI No 328 of 29 November 1982, p. 8599; hereinafter Decree-Law No 688/1982). It provided: Any person who ... has paid customs import duties, manufacturing taxes, consumption taxes or State duties which were not due shall be entitled to repayment of the sums paid if he provides documentary evidence that the charge in question was not passed on, in any manner whatsoever, to other persons, except in the case of clerical error.

Facts

4.4

Article 19 of Decree-Law No 688/1982 has given rise to two judgments of the Court. The first was in Case 199/82 San Giorgio [1983] ECR 3595 following a reference for a preliminary ruling and the second, in Case 104/86 Commission v Italy [1988] ECR 1799, was in an action by the Commission against the Italian Republic for failure to fulfil obligations.

5.5

In the latter judgment, the Court held:

6.6

7.7

Lastly, as the Court held in the judgment ... [in] San Giorgio ..., with regard to Article 19 of the very Decree-Law at issue in this case, any requirement of proof which has the effect of making it virtually impossible or excessively difficult to secure the repayment of charges levied contrary to Community law is incompatible with Community law; that is particularly so in the case of presumptions or rules of evidence intended to place on the taxpayer the burden of establishing that the charges unduly paid have not been passed on to other persons or of special limitations concerning the form of the evidence to be adduced, such as the exclusion of any kind of evidence other than documentary evidence.

In the alternative, the Italian Government analyses the principles of the detailed rules, criticised by the Commission, for the exercise of the right to recover sums paid though not due and argues, first, that the Commission admits that Article 29(2) of Law No 428/1990 is in itself compatible with Community law. It submits that that provision requires the administrative authorities to show that the taxpayer has passed on the charge to third parties if they are to escape the obligation to repay the amount thereof.

22

The Italian Government points out, secondly, that, in paragraph 25 of the judgment in Comateb and Others , cited above, the Court held that, [t]he actual passing on [of an indirect tax], either in whole or in part, depends on various factors in each commercial transaction which distinguish it from other transactions in other contexts and, [c]onsequently, the question whether an indirect tax has or has not been passed on in each case is a question of fact to be determined by the national court which may freely assess the evidence. The Italian Government contends that, in his Opinion in Dilexport , Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer added that the national court could call upon all the methods of proof allowed by national law to establish the facts. The Government explains that the Corte suprema di cassazione is not the judge of the merits, but confines itself to laying down certain general principles of evidence, on the basis of procedural circumstances which may vary considerably depending on the dispute. The judge of the merits might well accept means of deduction as methods of proof. The court decisions in favour of taxpayers produced in this case establish merely that the administrative authorities have not proved that charges were passed on.

23

As for the administrative authorities, which are subject to this burden of proof, it is legitimate for them to seek access to the claimant's accounts, because only such inquiry enables them to adduce that evidence and it is not, consequently, in any way a fishing expedition. If the claimant does not produce its accounts voluntarily, it is usual that, if it pursues its claims in court, the authorities seek such production by the same route. That is the meaning of the two ministerial circulars mentioned in paragraph 17 of this judgment and criticised by the Commission. The Italian Government makes clear that courts regard failure to produce accounts as an argument in favour of the authorities only if the application for production of those documents was lodged before the expiry of the statutory preservation period. In that case, even if the court rules on that application only after such expiry, the duty to act in good faith in the proceedings requires the taxpayer to preserve its accounts and to produce them pursuant to the judicial decision to grant the application (Judgment No 9797 of the Corte suprema di cassazione of 18 November 1994).

24

The Italian Government adds that even if long proceedings are sometimes necessary in order to obtain repayment, the adverse effects connected to such length of time are offset by the award of interest on the sums due.

Findings of the Court

25

According to the Court's settled case-law, in the absence of Community rules on the recovery 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 lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which individuals derive from Community law, provided, first, that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic actions (principle of equivalence) and, secondly, that they do not render virtually impossible or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Community law (principle of effectiveness) (see, inter alia , Case 33/76 Rewe [1976] ECR 1989, paragraph 5, and Case C-255/00 Grundig Italiana [2002] ECR I-8003, paragraph 33).

26

As regards Article 29(2) of Law No 428/1990, as pointed out in paragraph 7 in this judgment and in the light of the differences in construction of that provision, the judgment in Dilexport , cited above, delivered in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling where it was for the national judge to decide the case, stated that, if there was a presumption that the duties and charges unlawfully levied or collected when not due have been passed on to third parties and the plaintiff was required to rebut that presumption in order to secure repayment of the charge, the provision in question must be regarded as contrary to Community law.

27

In the present action for failure to fulfil obligations, it is by contrast for the Court itself to determine whether, taking account of the matters relied upon by the Commission, the application by the Italian authorities of Article 29(2) of Law No 428/1990 actually leads to the establishment of such a presumption or otherwise results in making the exercise of the right to repayment of such taxes virtually impossible or excessively difficult, in which cases it would be necessary to make a declaration of the Italian Republic's failure to fulfil obligations.

28

The Commission's complaint in support of its action has three aspects. First, many Italian courts, especially and repeatedly the Corte suprema di cassazione, consider that the passing on of charges to third parties is established from the sole fact that the claimant is a commercial undertaking, sometimes adding to it the grounds that the undertaking has not gone bankrupt and that the charge has been levied for years throughout the national territory without objection. Secondly, the authorities systematically seek the production of claimants' accounting documents. The courts before which claimants bring objections accede to such applications by adopting the same sort of reasoning as that set out above and they regard with disfavour claimants' failure to produce the documents even though the statutory period for their preservation has expired. Thirdly, the authorities regard failure to account for the amount of the taxes in question, from the year of their payment, as payments to the public purse for undue tax and credited as an asset in the balance-sheet of the undertaking seeking its repayment, as proof that those charges have been passed on to third parties.

A Member State's failure to fulfil obligations may, in principle, be established under Article 226 EC whatever the agency of that State whose action or inaction is the cause of the failure to fulfil its obligations, even in the case of a constitutionally independent institution (Case 77/69 Commission v Belgium [1970] ECR 237, paragraph 15).

30

The scope of national laws, regulations or administrative provisions must be assessed in the light of the interpretation given to them by national courts (see, particularly, Case C-382/92 Commission v United Kingdom [1994] ECR I-2435, paragraph 36).

31

In this case what is at issue is Article 29(2) of Law No 428/1990 which provides that duties and charges levied under national provisions incompatible with Community legislation are to be repaid, unless the amount thereof has been passed on to others. Such a provision is in itself neutral in respect of Community law in relation both to the burden of proof that the charge has been passed on to other persons and to the evidence which is admissible to prove it. Its effect must be determined in the light of the construction which the national courts give it.

32

In that regard, isolated or numerically insignificant judicial decisions in the context of case-law taking a different direction, or still more a construction disowned by the national supreme court, cannot be taken into account. That is not true of a widely-held judicial construction which has not been disowned by the supreme court, but rather confirmed by it.

33

Where national legislation has been the subject of different relevant judicial constructions, some leading to the application of that legislation in compliance with Community law, others leading to the opposite application, it must be held that, at the very least, such legislation is not sufficiently clear to ensure its application in compliance with Community law.

34

In the present case, the Italian Government does not dispute that a certain number of judgments of the Corte suprema di cassazione lead, by deductive reasoning, to the conclusion that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, commercial undertakings trading normally pass on an indirect tax by subsequent sales, in particular if it is levied throughout the national territory for an appreciable period without objection. The Italian Government confines itself to explaining that numerous trial courts do not accept such reasoning as proof of such passing on and to providing examples of taxpayers who secured repayment of charges contrary to Community law, since the authorities did not succeed in those cases in proving to the relevant court that the taxpayers had passed on those charges.

35

The reasoning followed in the cited judgments of the Corte suprema di cassazione is itself based on a premiss which is a mere presumption, namely that indirect taxes are in principle passed on by subsequent sales by economic operators where they have the chance. The other factors, if any, taken into account, namely the commercial nature of the taxpayer's business, the fact that its financial situation is not parlous and the levying of the tax in question throughout the national territory for an appreciable period without objection, permit the conclusion that an undertaking which has carried on its business in such a context has in fact passed on the charges in question only if one relies on the premiss that all economic operators act thus, save in special circumstances such as the absence of one or other of those factors. However, as the Court has already held (see San Giorgio , cited above, paragraphs 14 and 15; Joined Cases 331/85, 376/85 and 378/85 Bianco and Girard [1988] ECR I-1099, paragraph 17; Commission v Italy , cited above, paragraph 7, and Comateb and Others , paragraph 25), and for the economic reasons pointed out by the Advocate General in points 73 to 80 of his Opinion, such a premiss is unjustified in a certain number of situations and is merely a presumption which cannot be accepted in the context of the examination of claims for repayment of indirect taxes contrary to Community law.

36

As regards the requirement, as a condition precedent to any repayment, for production of the accounting documents of the undertaking which is claiming repayment of charges contrary to Community law, the following considerations must be taken into account.

37

Such a requirement, concerning the years for which repayment is claimed, which is raised during the period for which the accounting documents in question must obligatorily be preserved, cannot be regarded in itself as reversing, to taxpayers' disadvantage, the burden of proof that the charges have not been passed on to third parties. Such documents provide neutral factual information from which, in particular, the authorities may try to show that the charges have been passed on to others (see, to that effect, Case C-147/01 Weber's Wine World and Others [2003] ECR I-11365, paragraph 115). In that situation, and in the absence of special circumstances upon which the claimant could rely, failure to produce accounting documents when they are requested by the authorities can be regarded by them or by the courts as a factor to be taken into account in showing that the charges have been passed on to third parties. However, that factor cannot, by itself, be sufficient for it to be presumed that those charges have been passed on to third parties nor, a fortiori , to impose on the claimant the onus of rebutting such a presumption by proving the contrary (see, to that effect, Weber's Wine World and Others , cited above, paragraph 116).

38

In any event, in situations where the authorities seek the production of those documents after the expiry of their statutory preservation period and the taxpayer fails to produce them, the fact of drawing the conclusion therefrom that the taxpayer has passed on the charges in question to third parties or of drawing the same conclusion subject to the taxpayer proving the contrary amounts to establishing to the taxpayer's disadvantage a presumption which results in making excessively difficult the exercise of the right to repayment of charges contrary to Community law.

39

In relation to the fact that the authorities consider that the passing on of a charge to third parties is established if the amount of that charge has not been accounted for, from the year of its payment, as a payment to the public purse for undue tax, and credited as an asset in the balance-sheet of the undertaking seeking its repayment, it must be held as follows.

40

Such reasoning leads to the establishment of an unjustified presumption to the claimant's disadvantage. In view of the conditions in which a claim for repayment of a charge occurs, to add the amount of that charge as an asset to the balance sheet for the year of its payment assumes that the taxpayer immediately considers that it has a high chance of successfully disputing its payment, although, under the very terms of Article 29(1) of Law No 428/1990, it has a period of several years to bring such claim. Furthermore, the taxpayer may very well, even while challenging the payment of the charge, consider its chances of success insufficiently sure to take the risk of accounting for the corresponding amount as an asset. In that regard, in view of the difficulties of obtaining a favourable outcome to a claim for repayment in the circumstances revealed in this case, such an entry could even be alleged to be contrary to the principles of lawful accounting. In addition, to consider that the passing on of the charge to third parties is established on the ground that its amount has not been added as an asset to the balance sheet already depends on the presumption that indirect taxes are usually passed on by subsequent sales, a presumption which has been declared to be contrary to Community law in the course of the consideration of the first aspect criticised by the Commission.

41

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it must be declared that, by failing to amend Article 29(2) of Law No 428/1990, which is construed and applied by the administrative authorities and a substantial proportion of the courts, including the Corte suprema di cassazione, in such a way that the exercise of the right to repayment of charges levied in breach of Community rules is made excessively difficult for the taxpayer, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty.

Costs

42

Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the party who has been unsuccessful is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been claimed in the other party's pleadings. In this case, the Italian Republic has been unsuccessful and the Commission has claimed an order for its costs. That Member State must therefore be ordered to pay the costs.

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Full Court)

hereby:

Declares that, by failing to amend Article 29(2) of Law No 428 of 29 December 1990 entitled Disposizioni per l'adempimento di obblighi derivanti dall'appartenenza dell'Italia alle Comunità europee (legge comunitaria per il 1990) (Provisions for the fulfilment of obligations deriving from Italy's membership of the European Communities (Community law for 1990)), which is construed and applied by the administrative authorities and a substantial proportion of the courts, including the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy), in such a way that the exercise of the right to repayment of charges levied in breach of Community rules is made excessively difficult for the taxpayer, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;

Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Skouris

Jann

Timmermans

Gulmann

Cunha Rodrigues

Rosas

Edward

La Pergola

Puissochet

Schintgen

Macken

Colneric

von Bahr

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 9 December 2003.

Language of the case: Italian.