Odbor kompatibility s právem ES
Úřad vlády ČR
I S A P
Informační Systém pro Aproximaci Práva
Databáze č. 17 : Databáze judikatury
ă Odbor kompatibility s právem ES, Úřad vlády ČR - určeno pouze pro potřebu ministerstev a ostatních ústředních orgánů

Číslo (Kód CELEX):
Number (CELEX Code):		61979J0068
Název:
Title: 		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 27 FEBRUARY 1980. HANS JUST I/S V DANISH MINISTRY FOR FISCAL AFFAIRS. PRELIMINARY RULING REQUESTED BY THE OESTRE LANDSRET. TAX ARRANGEMENTS APPLICABLE TO SPIRITS. CASE 68-79.
Publikace:
Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1980 PAGES 0501
Předmět (klíčová slova):
Keywords		TAXATION;AGRICULTURE;ALCOHOL;
Související předpisy:
Corresponding acts:		157E095
Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty:
Corresponding Judgements:
    131] Rewe
    [715] Peterbroeck
Plný text:
Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:
Hans Just I/S (“Just”) is an importer of wines and spirits; it also produces alcoholic beverages. For these imported and alcoholic beverages, Just had paid taxes under the applicable Danish tax laws. When subsequently the Danish provisions were found to be incompatible with Community law
Cf. Case 171/78
Commission v Denmark
.
, Just brought an action against the Danish Ministry of Finance, claiming refund of the charges improperly paid. Under Danish law, however, actions for refund are to be instituted before the ordinary courts as claims for damages. In the calculation of the damages, account is taken
inter alia
of the fact that the alcoholic products in question have been sold to consumers at the normal prices, so that the undertaking has covered, besides of the cost price, the amount of the disputed charges with the addition of a normal profit margin. On the other hand, damages may be recovered also for the losses incurred from the fact that, as a result of the payment of the unlawful charges, the total of sales has been reduced.
The Řstre Landsret

stayed the proceedings and under Article 177 of the Treaty referred to the Court
inter alia
the question whether these rules for recovery of charges improperly required were compatible with Community law.

Názor soudu a komentář:
Community law does not contain any rules concerning the refunding of national charges which have been unlawfully levied. Under the system of cooperation national law and Community law, it is then a matter for the domestic legal order of each Member State to determine the applicable substantive and procedural rules. The national rules, however, have to respect the two limitations imposed by Community law that (a) those rules may not be less favourable than those relating to similar actions of a domestic nature and (b) they may not be such as to make it impossible in practice to exercise the rights established by Community law which the national courts are bound to protect (see e.g. [131]
Rewe;
[715]
Peterbroeck
). The divergent legal systems of the Member States are thus, in principle, equally compatible with Community law as long as they respect these limits. For example the Court has held that it was compatible with Community law to lay down reasonable limitation periods in the interest of legal certainty which protects both the tax-payer and the administration concerned ( [131]
Rewe
).
The Court also accepts the special aspects of the Danish law here in issue. “Community law does not require an order for the recovery of charges improperly made to be granted in circumstances which would involve unjust enrichement of those entitled. There is nothing, therefore, from the point of view of Community law, to prevent national courts from taking account in accordance with their national law of the fact that it has been possible for charges unduly levied to be incorporated in the prices of the undertaking liable for the charge and to be passed on to the purchasers.” Similarly, it is in accordance with Community law for damage which an importer may have suffered because the effect of the discriminatory of protective tax provisions was to restrict the volume of imports from other Member States.

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. WHILST THE TREATY DOES NOT EXCLUDE, IN PRINCIPLE, A DIFFERENCE IN THE TAXATION OF VARIOUS ALCOHOLIC PRODUCTS, SUCH A DISTINCTION MAY NOT BE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAX DISCRIMINATION OR IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO AFFORD PROTECTION, EVEN INDIRECT, TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTION. A SYSTEM WHICH CONSISTS IN CONFERRING A TAX ADVANTAGE ON A SINGLE PRODUCT WHICH REPRESENTS THE MAJOR PROPORTION OF DOMESTIC PRODUCTION TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER SIMILAR OR COMPETING IMPORTED PRODUCTS IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW.

2. WHERE A NATIONAL SYSTEM OF TAXATION AT DIFFERENT RATES IS FOUND TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH COMMUNITY LAW, THE MEMBER STATE IN QUESTION MUST APPLY TO IMPORTED PRODUCTS A RATE OF TAX WHICH ELIMINATES THE MARGIN OF DISCRIMINATION OR PROTECTION PRO- HIBITED BY THE TREATY. ARTICLE 95 ACCORDS SUCH TREATMENT ONLY TO PRODUCTS WHICH ARE IMPORTED FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES.

3. IN APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF CO-OPERATION LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 5 OF THE TREATY, IT IS THE COURTS OF THE MEMBER STATES WHICH ARE ENTRUSTED WITH ENSURING THE LEGAL PROTECTION WHICH SUBJECTS DERIVE FROM THE DIRECT EFFECT OF THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW.

4. IN THE ABSENCE OF COMMUNITY RULES CONCERNING THE REFUNDING OF NATIONAL CHARGES WHICH HAVE BEEN LEVIED IN BREACH OF ARTICLE 95 OF THE EEC TREATY, IT IS FOR THE MEMBER STATES TO ARRANGE FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF SUCH CHARGES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEIR DOMESTIC LEGAL SYSTEM; IT IS FOR THEM TO DESIGNATE TO THIS INTENT THE COURTS HAVING JURISDICTION AND TO DETERMINE THE PROCEDURAL CONDITIONS GOVERNING ACTIONS AT LAW. SUCH CONDITIONS CANNOT BE LESS FAVOURABLE THAN THOSE RELATING TO SIMILAR ACTIONS OF A DOMESTIC NATURE AND MUST NOT MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE IN PRACTICE TO EXERCISE THE RIGHTS CONFERRED ON INDIVIDUALS BY THE COMMUNITY LEGAL SYSTEM. COMMUNITY LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ORDER FOR THE RECOVERY OF CHARGES IMPROPERLY MADE TO BE GRANTED IN CONDITIONS WHICH WOULD INVOLVE THE UNJUST ENRICHMENT OF THOSE ENTITLED. THUS IT DOES NOT PREVENT ACCOUNT BEING TAKEN OF THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN POSSIBLE FOR THE BURDEN OF SUCH CHARGES TO BE PASSED ON TO OTHER TRADERS OR TO CONSUMERS. IT IS EQUALLY COMPATIBLE W
ITH THE PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY LAW FOR ACCOUNT TO BE TAKEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL LAW OF THE STATE CONCERNED OF THE DAMAGE WHICH AN IMPORTER MAY HAVE SUFFERED BECAUSE THE EFFECT OF THE DISCRIMINATORY OR PROTECTIVE TAX PROVISIONS WAS TO RESTRICT THE VOLUME OF IMPORTS FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):