C-90/05 Commission v Luxembourg

Judgment · Court of Justice · Luxembourg · 19 January 2006

Luxembourg's delays in refunding VAT to non-established businesses

What is the case?

The Eighth Directive laid down the arrangements under which a business established in one Member State recovers VAT incurred in another, and Article 7(4) required the competent authority to notify its decision on a refund application within six months of the application being submitted. Luxembourg was not observing that period, so claims by taxable persons not established in the country were being dealt with late. The Commission brought infringement proceedings under Article 226 EC.

What is the Court asked?

Whether, by failing to observe the six-month period laid down in Article 7(4) of the Eighth Directive for deciding on applications for the refund of VAT by taxable persons not established in the territory of the country, Luxembourg had failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

The Court’s decision

The Court upheld the action. By not observing the six-month period for refunds of VAT to taxable persons not established within the country, Luxembourg had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of the Eighth Directive. Administrative practice or the state of the national system cannot justify a failure to comply with a directive, and compliance is assessed by reference to the situation at the end of the period set in the reasoned opinion. Luxembourg was ordered to pay the costs. An early instance of the Court treating refund deadlines as substantive rather than indicative.

AI-generated and factual. Not an official document: verify against the text below.

Record

Court: Court of Justice
Case number: C-90/05
ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2006:58
Official texts: Judgment of 19 January 2006 (62005CJ0090)
Cite as: Judgment of 19 January 2006, Commission v Luxembourg, C-90/05, EU:C:2006:58

Judgment of 19 January 2006

Text as published by the Court on EUR-Lex, CELEX 62005CJ0090.

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 18(1) and the first and third indents of Article 19i of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (OJ 1993 L 261, p. 1) — Failure to provide the prescribed information

Operative part:

The Court:

Grounds

1Declares that by failing to provide the information required under the first and third indents of Article 19i of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2635/97 of 18 December 1997, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation;

2Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 2006 — Commission v Luxembourg

(Case C-90/05)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 79/1072/EEC — VAT — Refund — Taxable persons not established in the territory of the country)

1. Actsoftheinstitutions—Directives—ImplementationbyMemberStates— Need for clear and precise application (Art. 249, third para., EC) (see para.10)

I - 14* 2. Actionsforfailuretofulfilobligations—ExaminationofmeritsbytheCourt — Situation to be taken into consideration — Situation on expiry of the periodlaiddowninthereasonedopinion(Art.226 EC) (see para.11)

3Member States — Obligations — Implementation of directives — Failureto fulfil obligations — National system pleaded as justification — Not permissible(Art.226 EC) (see para.13)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 7(4) of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country (OJ 1979 L 331, p. 11) — Delays in refunds of VAT paid to taxable persons not established within the country

Operative part:

The Court:

1. Declares that, by not observing the six-month period for refunds of VAT to taxable persons not established within the country, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of Eighth Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the country;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

I - 15*