|
PARALLEL TEXTS
Il diritto dell'Unione non ammette la normativa inglese che ha l'effetto di privare, senza preavviso e con effetto retroattivo, i contribuenti di un mezzo di ricorso per la ripetizione delle imposte percepite in violazione del diritto dell'Unione
Inglese tratto da:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-13-158_en.htm
Italiano tratto da:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_CJE-13-158_it.htm
Data documento: 12-12-2013
1 |
EU law precludes UK legislation whose effect is to deprive taxpayers, without notice and retroactively, of a remedy for recovering tax levied in breach of EU law
|
Il diritto dell'Unione non ammette la normativa inglese che ha l'effetto di privare, senza preavviso e con effetto retroattivo, i contribuenti di un mezzo di ricorso per la ripetizione delle imposte percepite in violazione del diritto dell'Unione
|
2 |
The fact that a second remedy is available to taxpayers for recovering that tax does not counteract the negative consequences of removing the more favourable remedy
|
La possibilità di un secondo mezzo di ricorso per recuperare tali imposte non elimina le conseguenze negative della soppressione del mezzo di ricorso più favorevole
|
3 |
Under English law, as it stood before 24 June 2004, two remedies were available for recovering tax levied in breach of EU law.
|
Il diritto inglese in vigore anteriormente al 24 giugno 2004 prevedeva due mezzi di ricorso per la ripetizione delle imposte percepite in violazione del diritto dell'Unione.
|
4 |
The first, the ‘Woolwich cause of action’ was an action for recovery of tax unlawfully levied, for which the limitation period was six years from the date of payment of the tax.
|
Il primo, l'«azione Woolwich», costituiva un'azione di ripetizione dell'imposta indebitamente percepita che giungeva a prescrizione nel termine di sei anni dalla data del pagamento del tributo.
|
5 |
The second, the ‘Kleinwort Benson cause of action’, permitted the restitution of sums paid under a mistake of law.The limitation period for that action was six years from the date the claimant discovered the mistake of law or could with reasonable diligence have discovered it.
|
Il secondo mezzo di ricorso, l’«azione Kleinwort Benson», permetteva il rimborso delle somme versate a seguito di un errore di diritto e prevedeva un termine di prescrizione di sei anni a decorrere dalla data in cui il ricorrente avesse scoperto l'errore di diritto o avrebbe potuto scoprirlo applicando la ragionevole diligenza.
|
6 |
By legislation enacted on 24 June 2004, the national legislature decided that the limitation period for the ‘Kleinwort Benson cause of action’ was not to apply in relation to a mistake of law relating to a taxation matter within the remit of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
|
Con legge del 24 giugno 2004, il legislatore britannico ha deciso che il termine di prescrizione dell’ «azione Kleinwort Benson» non si applicava con riferimento a un errore di diritto legato a una questione tributaria di competenza dei Commissioners of Inland Revenue .
|
7 |
The new rule applied retroactively to actions brought on or after 8 September 2003, the date on which the United Kingdom Government had announced its intention to adopt the legislation.
|
Tale nuova regola si applicava retroattivamente alle azioni proposte a decorrere dall’8 settembre 2003, data in cui il governo del Regno Unito aveva annunciato la sua proposta di legge.
|
8 |
By a judgment delivered on 8 March , the Court of Justice held that certain aspects of the advance corporation tax (‘ACT’) regime, which applied in the United Kingdom from 1973 to 1999, were incompatible with the freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital.
|
Con una sentenza dell’8 marzo 2001 , la Corte di giustizia ha dichiarato che taluni aspetti del regime di pagamento anticipato dell'imposta sulle società «advance corporation tax» (ACT), applicata nel Regno Unito tra il 1973 e il 1999, erano incompatibili con la libertà di stabilimento e la libera circolazione dei capitali.
|
9 |
Following that judgment, Aegis, the multinational media and digital communications group, introduced a claim on 8 September 2003 on the basis of the ‘Kleinwort Benson cause of action’, seeking to recover ACT wrongly paid between 1973 and 1999.
|
In seguito a tale sentenza, il gruppo multinazionale Aegis, attivo nel settore dei media e delle comunicazioni digitali, ha proposto, l’8 settembre 2003, un’azione di ripetizione avvalendosi dell’«azione Kleinwort Benson» allo scopo di reclamare gli importi dell’ACT da esso indebitamente pagati tra il 1973 e il 1999.
|
10 |
The limitation period applicable to that action began to run on 8 March 2001, the date on which the Court of Justice gave its ruling on the compatibility of the ACT regime with EU law.
|
Il termine di prescrizione iniziava a decorrere l’8 marzo 2001, giorno in cui la Corte si è pronunciata sulla compatibilità del regime ACT con l’ordinamento dell’Unione.
|
11 |
As the retroactive application of the legislation of 24 June 2004 meant that Aegis could no longer bring a claim for recovery on the basis of the ‘Kleinwort Benson cause of action’, the group turned to the United Kingdom courts, arguing that denying it the benefit of the more favourable rules on limitation applicable to such an action was contrary to a number of principles of EU law.
|
Poiché l'applicazione retroattiva della legge del 24 giugno 2004 ha privato l’Aegis della possibilità di proporre un’azione di ripetizione a norma dell’«azione Kleinwort Benson», il gruppo si è rivolto ai giudici del Regno Unito, facendo valere che la sua esclusione senza preavviso e con effetto retroattivo dal beneficio delle regole di prescrizione più favorevoli di tale azione era in contrasto con diversi principi del diritto dell'Unione.
|
12 |
In that context, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has asked the Court of Justice whether it is compatible with the EU law principles of effectiveness, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations to remove the ‘Kleinwort Benson cause of action’ without notice and retroactively.
|
La Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (Corte suprema del Regno Unito) ha allora chiesto alla Corte di dichiarare se i principi di effettività, di certezza del diritto e di tutela del legittimo affidamento previsti dal diritto dell’Unione consentano la soppressione senza preavviso e con effetti retroattivi dell’«azione Kleinwort Benson».
|
13 |
By its judgment of today, the Court finds, first, that the limitation period of six years applicable to the ‘Woolwich cause of action’, which starts to run on the date of payment of the tax, is, in itself, compatible with the principle of effectiveness, which prohibits the application of national rules which make it impossible or excessively difficult to recover tax levied in breach of EU law.
|
Con la sua sentenza odierna, la Corte constata, anzitutto, che il termine di prescrizione di sei anni dell’«azione Woolwich», che inizia a decorrere dalla data del pagamento delle imposte non dovute, è, di per sé, compatibile con il principio di effettività, il quale vieta l'applicazione di norme nazionali suscettibili di rendere impossibile o eccessivamente difficile la restituzione di imposte percepite in violazione del diritto dell’Unione.
|
14 |
The Court then recalls that the principle of effectiveness does not prevent, in principle, the retroactive application of a new period for bringing proceedings which is shorter than the period previously applicable, where such application concerns actions for the recovery of tax which have not yet been commenced by the time the new period enters into force but which relate to sums paid whilst the old period was still applicable.
|
La Corte ricorda poi che il principio di effettività non osta neppure, in linea di principio, all’applicazione retroattiva di un nuovo termine di ricorso più breve del termine precedentemente applicabile, in quanto siffatta applicazione riguardi azioni di ripetizione di imposte non ancora avviate al momento dell’entrata in vigore del nuovo termine, ma relative a importi versati quando era applicabile il termine precedente.
|
15 |
However, the new national rules must include transitional arrangements allowing an adequate period after the enactment of the legislation for lodging the claims for repayment which persons were entitled to submit under the previous legislation.
|
Tuttavia, le nuove norme nazionali devono prevedere un regime transitorio che consenta agli interessati di disporre di un termine sufficiente, successivamente alla loro adozione, per poter presentare le domande di rimborso che essi erano legittimati a proporre durante la vigenza della disciplina precedente.
|
16 |
Such transitional arrangements are necessary where the immediate application to those claims of a limitation period shorter than that which was previously in force would have the effect of retroactively depriving some individuals of their right to repayment, or of allowing them too short a period for asserting that right.
|
Un regime transitorio siffatto è indispensabile, posto che l’applicazione immediata di un termine di prescrizione più breve di quello precedentemente in vigore avrebbe l'effetto di privare retroattivamente taluni interessati del loro diritto al rimborso oppure di lasciare loro soltanto un termine troppo breve per far valere tale diritto.
|
17 |
Consequently, national legislation curtailing, retroactively and without any transitional arrangements, the period within which repayment could be claimed of sums collected in breach of EU law is incompatible with the principle of effectiveness.
|
Di conseguenza, il principio di effettività non ammette una normativa nazionale che riduce, con effetto retroattivo e senza regime transitorio, il termine nel corso del quale poteva essere richiesto il rimborso degli importi versati in violazione del diritto dell'Unione.
|
18 |
In that regard, the Court observes that the fact that two legal remedies are available to taxpayers for recovering the tax unlawfully levied does not necessarily counteract the negative consequences of removing one of those remedies.
|
La Corte sottolinea che il fatto che i contribuenti dispongano di due mezzi di ricorso per recuperare l’imposta illegittimamente percepita non elimina necessariamente le conseguenze negative della soppressione di uno di tali mezzi.
|
19 |
Lastly, for the same reasons, the Court finds that the domestic legislation also infringes the principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.
|
Infine, per le stesse ragioni, la Corte constata che la normativa inglese pregiudica anche i principi di certezza del diritto e di tutela del legittimo affidamento.
|
20 |
NOTE:
|
IMPORTANTE:
|
21 |
A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act.
|
Il rinvio pregiudiziale consente ai giudici degli Stati membri, nell'ambito di una controversia della quale sono investiti, di interpellare la Corte in merito all’interpretazione del diritto dell’Unione o alla validità di un atto dell’Unione.
|
22 |
The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself.
|
La Corte non risolve la controversia nazionale.
|
23 |
It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised. |
Spetta al giudice nazionale risolvere la causa conformemente alla decisione della Corte. Tale decisione vincola egualmente gli altri giudici nazionali ai quali venga sottoposto un problema simile. |
|
LISTEN WITH READSPEAKER
EU law precludes UK legislation whose effect is to deprive taxpayers,
without notice and retroactively, of a remedy for recovering tax levied in
breach of EU law
The fact that a second remedy is available to taxpayers for recovering
that tax does not counteract the negative consequences of removing the more
favourable remedy
Under English law, as it stood before 24 June 2004, two remedies were
available for recovering tax levied in breach of EU law.
The first, the ‘Woolwich cause of action’ was an action for recovery of tax
unlawfully levied, for which the limitation period was six years from the date
of payment of the tax.
The second, the ‘Kleinwort Benson cause of action’, permitted the restitution
of sums paid under a mistake of law.The limitation period for that action was
six years from the date the claimant discovered the mistake of law or could with
reasonable diligence have discovered it.
By legislation enacted on 24 June 2004, the national legislature decided that
the limitation period for the ‘Kleinwort Benson cause of action’ was not to
apply in relation to a mistake of law relating to a taxation matter within the
remit of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.
The new rule applied retroactively to actions brought on or after 8 September
2003, the date on which the United Kingdom Government had announced its
intention to adopt the legislation.
By a judgment delivered on 8 March , the Court of Justice held that certain
aspects of the advance corporation tax (‘ACT’) regime, which applied in the
United Kingdom from 1973 to 1999, were incompatible with the freedom of
establishment and the free movement of capital.
Following that judgment, Aegis, the multinational media and digital
communications group, introduced a claim on 8 September 2003 on the basis of the
‘Kleinwort Benson cause of action’, seeking to recover ACT wrongly paid between
1973 and 1999.
The limitation period applicable to that action began to run on 8 March 2001,
the date on which the Court of Justice gave its ruling on the compatibility of
the ACT regime with EU law.
As the retroactive application of the legislation of 24 June 2004 meant that
Aegis could no longer bring a claim for recovery on the basis of the ‘Kleinwort
Benson cause of action’, the group turned to the United Kingdom courts, arguing
that denying it the benefit of the more favourable rules on limitation
applicable to such an action was contrary to a number of principles of EU law.
In that context, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has asked the Court
of Justice whether it is compatible with the EU law principles of effectiveness,
legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations to remove the
‘Kleinwort Benson cause of action’ without notice and retroactively.
By its judgment of today, the Court finds, first, that the limitation period
of six years applicable to the ‘Woolwich cause of action’, which starts to run
on the date of payment of the tax, is, in itself, compatible with the principle
of effectiveness, which prohibits the application of national rules which make
it impossible or excessively difficult to recover tax levied in breach of EU
law.
The Court then recalls that the principle of effectiveness does not prevent,
in principle, the retroactive application of a new period for bringing
proceedings which is shorter than the period previously applicable, where such
application concerns actions for the recovery of tax which have not yet been
commenced by the time the new period enters into force but which relate to sums
paid whilst the old period was still applicable.
However, the new national rules must include transitional arrangements
allowing an adequate period after the enactment of the legislation for lodging
the claims for repayment which persons were entitled to submit under the
previous legislation.
Such transitional arrangements are necessary where the immediate application
to those claims of a limitation period shorter than that which was previously in
force would have the effect of retroactively depriving some individuals of their
right to repayment, or of allowing them too short a period for asserting that
right.
Consequently, national legislation curtailing, retroactively and without any
transitional arrangements, the period within which repayment could be claimed of
sums collected in breach of EU law is incompatible with the principle of
effectiveness.
In that regard, the Court observes that the fact that two legal remedies are
available to taxpayers for recovering the tax unlawfully levied does not
necessarily counteract the negative consequences of removing one of those
remedies.
Lastly, for the same reasons, the Court finds that the domestic legislation
also infringes the principles of legal certainty and the protection of
legitimate expectations.
NOTE:
A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the
Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer
questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law
or the validity of a European Union act.
The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself.
It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance
with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts
or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.
|