Avis juridique important

62000J0078

European Court reports 2001 Page I-08195

Summary

A Member State which provides for the refund of excess VAT by the issue of Government bonds to a category of taxable persons whose tax position is in credit fails to fulfil its obligations under Articles 17 and 18 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes.

The conditions for a refund that a Member State sets under Article 18(4) of the Sixth Directive must enable the taxable person, in appropriate conditions, to recover the entirety of the credit arising from that excess tax, which implies that the refund is carried out within a reasonable period of time by a payment in liquid funds or equivalent means; the method of refund adopted must not, in any event, entail any financial risk for the taxable person.

(see paras 34, 39 and operative part)

Parties

In Case C-78/00,

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

applicant,

Italian Republic, represented by U. Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by G. De Bellis, avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg,

defendant,

APPLICATION for a declaration that, by providing that the category of taxable persons whose tax position for 1992 is in credit be belatedly issued with Government bonds instead of refunds of value added tax, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 17 and 18 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes - Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995 amending Directive 77/388/EEC and introducing new simplification measures with regard to value added tax - scope of certain exemptions and practical arrangements for implementing them (OJ 1995 L 102, p. 18),

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),

composed of: S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), President of the Fourth Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Mischo,

Registrar: R. Grass,

having regard to the report of the Judge-Rapporteur,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 7 June 2001,

gives the following

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (OJ 2012 L 26, p. 1), as amended by Directive 2014/52/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 (OJ 2014 L 124, p. 1) (‘Directive 2011/92’).

The request has been made in proceedings between, on the one hand, Waltham Abbey Residents Association and, on the other hand, An Bord Pleanála (Planning Board, Ireland; ‘the Board’), Ireland and the Attorney General (Ireland), concerning authorisation granted by the Board for a strategic residential housing development.

Legal context

European Union law

Directive 2011/92

Recitals 7 to 9 of Directive 2011/92 state:

‘(7) Development consent for public and private projects which are likely to have significant effects on the environment should be granted only after an assessment of the likely significant environmental effects of those projects has been carried out. …

(8) Projects belonging to certain types have significant effects on the environment and those projects should, as a rule, be subject to a systematic assessment.

(9) Projects of other types may not have significant effects on the environment in every case and those projects should be assessed where the Member States consider that they are likely to have significant effects on the environment.’

Article 2(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall adopt all measures necessary to ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, inter alia, of their nature, size or location are made subject to a requirement for development consent and an assessment with regard to their effects on the environment. Those projects are defined in Article 4.’

Under Article 3(1) of that directive:

‘The environmental impact assessment shall identify, describe and assess in an appropriate manner, in the light of each individual case, the direct and indirect significant effects of a project on the following factors:

…

(b) biodiversity, with particular attention to species and habitats protected under [Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7), as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013 (OJ 2013 L 158, p. 193) (“Directive 92/43”)] and Directive 2009/147/EC [of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 2010 L 20, p. 7)];

…’

Article 4 of Directive 2011/92 provides:

‘1. Subject to Article 2(4), projects listed in Annex I shall be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to 10.

(a) a case-by-case examination;

(b) thresholds or criteria set by the Member State.

Member States may decide to apply both procedures referred to in points (a) and (b).

Where a case-by-case examination is carried out or thresholds or criteria are set for the purpose of paragraph 2, the relevant selection criteria set out in Annex III shall be taken into account. Member States may set thresholds or criteria to determine when projects need not undergo either the determination under paragraphs 4 and 5 or an environmental impact assessment, and/or thresholds or criteria to determine when projects shall in any case be made subject to an environmental impact assessment without undergoing a determination set out under paragraphs 4 and 5.

Where Member States decide to require a determination for projects listed in Annex II, the developer shall provide information on the characteristics of the project and its likely significant effects on the environment. The detailed list of information to be provided is specified in Annex IIA. The developer shall take into account, where relevant, the available results of other relevant assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The developer may also provide a description of any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

The competent authority shall make its determination, on the basis of the information provided by the developer in accordance with paragraph 4 taking into account, where relevant, the results of preliminary verifications or assessments of the effects on the environment carried out pursuant to Union legislation other than this Directive. The determination shall made available to the public and:

(a) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is required, state the main reasons for requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III; or

(b) where it is decided that an environmental impact assessment is not required, state the main reasons for not requiring such assessment with reference to the relevant criteria listed in Annex III, and, where proposed by the developer, state any features of the project and/or measures envisaged to avoid or prevent what might otherwise have been significant adverse effects on the environment.

Member States shall ensure that the competent authority makes its determination as soon as possible and within a period of time not exceeding 90 days from the date on which the developer has submitted all the information required pursuant to paragraph 4. In exceptional cases, for instance relating to the nature, complexity, location or size of the project, the competent authority may extend that deadline to make its determination; in that event, the competent authority shall inform the developer in writing of the reasons justifying the extension and of the date when its determination is expected.’

Annex II.A of that directive contains the list of ‘information to be provided by the developer on the projects listed in Annex II’. That list reads as follows:

‘1. A description of the project, including in particular:

(a) a description of the physical characteristics of the whole project and, where relevant, of demolition works;

(b) a description of the location of the project, with particular regard to the environmental sensitivity of geographical areas likely to be affected.

3. A description of any likely significant effects, to the extent of the information available on such effects, of the project on the environment resulting from:

(a) the expected residues and emissions and the production of waste, where relevant;

(b) the use of natural resources, in particular soil, land, water and biodiversity.

4. The criteria of Annex III shall be taken into account, where relevant, when compiling the information in accordance with points 1 to 3.’

Annex III to that directive sets out the ‘criteria to determine whether the projects listed in Annex II should be subject to an environmental impact assessment’.

Directive 2014/52

Recitals 11 and 29 of Directive 2014/52 state:

‘(11) The measures taken to avoid, prevent, reduce and, if possible, offset significant adverse effects on the environment, in particular on species and habitats protected under [Directive 92/43] and Directive 2009/147 …, should contribute to avoiding any deterioration in the quality of the environment and any net loss of biodiversity, in accordance with the [European] Union’s commitments in the context of the [United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, signed in Rio de Janeiro on 5 June 1992,] and the objectives and actions of the Union Biodiversity Strategy up to 2020 laid down in the [Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions] of 3 May 2011 entitled ‘Our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity strategy to 2020’ [(COM(2011) 244 final)]’

…

(29) When determining whether significant effects on the environment are likely to be caused by a project, the competent authorities should identify the most relevant criteria to be considered and should take into account information that could be available following other assessments required by Union legislation in order to apply the screening procedure effectively and transparently. In this regard, it is appropriate to specify the content of the screening determination, in particular where no environmental impact assessment is required. Moreover, taking into account unsolicited comments that might have been received from other sources, such as members of the public or public authorities, even though no formal consultation is required at the screening stage, constitutes good administrative practice.’

Directive 92/43

Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43 provides:

‘Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. In the light of the conclusions of the assessment of the implications for the site and subject to the provisions of paragraph 4, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public.’

Article 12(1) of that directive provides:

‘Member States shall take the requisite measures to establish a system of strict protection for the animal species listed in Annex IV(a) in their natural range, prohibiting:

(a) all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens of these species in the wild;

(b) deliberate disturbance of these species, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration;

(c) deliberate destruction or taking of eggs from the wild;

(d) deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places.’

Point (a) of Annex IV to that directive mentions ‘all species’ of bats belonging to the suborder of ‘microchiroptera’.

Irish law

must be interpreted as meaning that where, in the context of a screening procedure carried out under that provision, a third party has provided the competent authority with objective evidence as regards the potential significant effects of that project on the environment, in particular on a species protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013, that authority must ask the developer to provide it with additional information and take that information into account before deciding whether or not an environmental impact assessment is necessary for that project. However, where, despite the observations submitted to that authority by a third party, the competent authority is able to rule out, on the basis of objective evidence, the possibility that the project in question is likely to have significant effects on the environment, that authority may decide that an environmental impact assessment is not necessary, without being required to ask the developer to provide it with additional information.

Gratsias

Passer

Smulders

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 6 March 2025.

Registrar

President of the Chamber

ECLI:EU:C:2025:140

15

25The Italian Government asserts that the person whose VAT account is in credit by the amount of an excess has suffered no damage as a result of the conditions for the refund of excess VAT in question since the bonds he received bear interest and are negotiable, thus allowing him to realise his credit immediately. The Italian Republic has derived no particular financial advantage from the bond issue, since that refund condition had the effect of substituting, for the debt corresponding to the taxable person's fiscal credit, another debt represented by the Government bonds.

26In any case, the Italian Government contends in its statement in defence, it is impossible, or excessively difficult, for it to comply with the reasoned opinion.

Findings of the Court

27In order to assess the compatibility of the national rules in question with the Sixth Directive it is first necessary to note the relevant characteristics of the common system of VAT as they apply in the present case.

28Article 17 of the Sixth Directive provides that taxable persons are entitled to deduct the VAT they have already paid, on goods purchased and services received as inputs, from the VAT which they are liable to pay. This right to deduct is, according to settled case-law, a fundamental principle of the common system of VAT established by the relevant Community legislation (see, in particular, Molenheide, cited above, paragraph 47).

29Pursuant to Article 18(2) of the Sixth Directive, the taxable person shall effect the deduction by subtracting from the total amount of tax due for a given tax period the total amount of tax in respect of which, during the same tax period, the right to deduct has arisen.

30As the Court has consistently held, the characteristics of the common system of VAT set out above show that the deduction system is meant to relieve the trader entirely of the burden of VAT payable or paid in the course of all his economic activities. The common system of VAT consequently ensures that all economic activities, whatever their purpose or results, provided that they are themselves subject to VAT, are taxed in a wholly neutral way. In the absence of any provision empowering the Member States to limit the right of deduction granted to taxable persons, that right must be exercised immediately in respect of all the taxes charged on transactions relating to inputs (see, in particular, Case 50/87 Commission v France [1988] ECR 4797, paragraphs 15 and 16).

31Where, for a tax period, the amount of deductible tax exceeds the amount of tax due and the taxable person cannot effect the deduction in accordance with Article 18(2) of the Sixth Directive, Article 18(4) of that directive provides that the Member States may either make a refund or carry the excess forward to the following period according to conditions which they shall determine.

32It appears from the express terms of Article 18(4) of the Sixth Directive, and in particular from the phrase according to conditions which they shall determine, that the Member States have a certain freedom to manoeuvre in determining the conditions for the refund of excess VAT.

33Nevertheless, since the refund of excess VAT is one of the fundamental factors ensuring the application of the principle of neutrality of the common system of VAT, the conditions determined by the Member States cannot undermine that principle by making the taxable person, in whole or in part, bear the burden of the VAT.

34It follows that the conditions for the refund of excess VAT that a Member State sets must enable the taxable person, in appropriate conditions, to recover the entirety of the credit arising from that excess VAT. This implies that the refund is carried out within a reasonable period of time by a payment in liquid funds or equivalent means. In any case, the method of refund adopted must not entail any financial risk for the taxable person.

35However, it appears from the information provided by the Commission, and unchallenged by the Italian Government, that the Italian Republic decided to refund the excess VAT to which a certain number of taxable persons was entitled for 1992 by the issue of 5-year and 10-year Government bonds running from 1 January 1994. Those bonds were only distributed to the taxable persons concerned progressively from April 1994 to December 1998.

36The Italian rules in question, which do not provide for a payment in liquid funds or by equivalent means within a reasonable time but for the issue of Government bonds, are clearly incompatible with the system for the refund of excess VAT provided by the Sixth Directive.

37The circumstance advanced by the Italian Government, that only a relatively small number of taxable persons was affected by the national rules in question, is irrelevant to the finding of a failure to fulfil obligations.

38Furthermore, the problem raised by the Italian Government, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for it to comply with Community law if the Court considers that the national rules in question infringe the provisions of the Sixth Directive, also has no bearing on the outcome of the dispute. In accordance with settled case-law, a Member State may not seek to rely on provisions, practices or circumstances in its internal legal order in order to justify failure to comply with the obligations and time-limits laid down in a directive (see, in particular, Case C-473/99 Commission v Austria [2001] ECR I-4527, paragraph 12).

39In those circumstances the Court finds that, by providing that the category of taxable persons whose tax position for 1992 is in credit be belatedly issued with Government bonds instead of refunds of the excess value added tax, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 17 and 18 of the Sixth Directive.

Decision on costs

Costs

40Under Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the successful party's pleadings. Since the Commission has applied for costs and the Italian Republic has been unsuccessful, the latter must be ordered to pay the costs.

Operative part

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) hereby: