1 retroactivity of ecj judgments eatlp 2010 peter j. wattel university of amsterdam hoge raad der...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: 1 Retroactivity of ECJ Judgments EATLP 2010 Peter J. Wattel University of Amsterdam Hoge Raad der Nederlanden](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4a1f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Retroactivity of ECJ Judgments EATLP 2010
Peter J. WattelUniversity of Amsterdam
Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
![Page 2: 1 Retroactivity of ECJ Judgments EATLP 2010 Peter J. Wattel University of Amsterdam Hoge Raad der Nederlanden](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4a1f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Propositon for debate:
“The ECJ should more often limit the retroactive effect of its judgements in the field of direct tax law.”
![Page 3: 1 Retroactivity of ECJ Judgments EATLP 2010 Peter J. Wattel University of Amsterdam Hoge Raad der Nederlanden](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4a1f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Trois actes clairs préliminaires:
• Member States should apply sensible time limits;
• and Courts should act more reasonably than tornadoes (Vording and Lubbers, BTR 2006/1, p. 111);
• the ECJ case law on the temporal effect of its judgments is entirely of its own making; it is political rather than legal; it is neither inevitable nor imperative; it is a (political) choice;
![Page 4: 1 Retroactivity of ECJ Judgments EATLP 2010 Peter J. Wattel University of Amsterdam Hoge Raad der Nederlanden](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4a1f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Legal Certainty• Is a principle of EU law;• The ECJ must respect that principle;• Unfortunately, ECJ case law in direct tax matters
is sometimes ultra vires (e.g. De Groot, Bosal, Marks & Spencer, Renneberg), inconsistent and contradictory (e.g. Bachmann/Commission v Denmark and De Groot/Amurta), self-contradictory within the same judgment (e.g. Schumacker, Marks&Spencer, X Holding BV), erroneous (e.g. FII GLO, De Groot, Renneberg) or manifestly ill-reasoned (e.g. X Holding);
![Page 5: 1 Retroactivity of ECJ Judgments EATLP 2010 Peter J. Wattel University of Amsterdam Hoge Raad der Nederlanden](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4a1f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Legal Certainty (cntd)
• The ECJ introduces intolerably vague concepts, like fiscal coherence and (balanced?) allocation of taxing power; nobody knows what they mean in a concrete technical international tax case;
• The ECJ has been shifting from discrimination to justification to just proportionality; it is essentially judging, in a an unsystematic, case-by-case manner and without Treaty guidance, the reasonableness of national tax measures, which is both unpredictable and outside its competence;
![Page 6: 1 Retroactivity of ECJ Judgments EATLP 2010 Peter J. Wattel University of Amsterdam Hoge Raad der Nederlanden](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4a1f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Legal Certainty (cntd)
Conclusions: • ECJ judgments in direct tax matters are
often not declaratory, but constitutive, or at least quite a surprise;
• Therefore, the ECJ itself is a source of legal uncertainty;
• Therefore, the very reason for retroactivity of judgments (their declaratory nature) is often absent.
![Page 7: 1 Retroactivity of ECJ Judgments EATLP 2010 Peter J. Wattel University of Amsterdam Hoge Raad der Nederlanden](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4a1f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Economic inefficiency
• Retroactive effect of judgments is economically irrational if the judgments are unpredictable. If accurate anticipation (adaptation of behaviour) is not possible, there is no learning effect and no economic efficiency;
• Without predictability, unlimited retroactivity of judgments produces the same results as gambling: arbitrary windfall profits for the lucky and arbitrary budgetary shifts and losses for the unlucky.
![Page 8: 1 Retroactivity of ECJ Judgments EATLP 2010 Peter J. Wattel University of Amsterdam Hoge Raad der Nederlanden](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4a1f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Criteria for limitation: good faith• Limitation of retroactivity is justified if the position
that the national measure is EU law compatible, was objectively tenable;
• This means that the Member State involved should not have known better; that is the case if there were no consistent and concrete indications to the contrary; if there was no case law or only contradictory or enigmatic case law;
• The Member State should have known better if the issue was clair or éclairé.
• If the judiciary has to refer the question and therefore does not know the answer now, then how should the legislature have known then?
![Page 9: 1 Retroactivity of ECJ Judgments EATLP 2010 Peter J. Wattel University of Amsterdam Hoge Raad der Nederlanden](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4a1f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Limits to the limitation: ius vigilantibus est
• in good faith cases, the ECJ should limit the effect of its direct tax case law to the future;
• except for taxpayers who brought claims before the date of referral by the national court on the same point of EU law;
• There is no reason to protect free riders and windfall profiteers (but Member States should apply sensible time limits)
![Page 10: 1 Retroactivity of ECJ Judgments EATLP 2010 Peter J. Wattel University of Amsterdam Hoge Raad der Nederlanden](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4a1f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Rewarding the bad?
• Does limitation of retroactivity on grounds of serious budgetary difficulties protect the bad guys/the larger infringements?
• No: they always have to pass the good faith test; • rather, it protects the other taxpayers against arbitrary
tax increases which are necessary to remedy the budgetary deficit caused by ECJ judgments involving huge tax revenue if retroactivity is not limited;
• the larger the amount, or the group of taxpayers taking a positive interest in an ECJ finding of incompatibility, the larger also the group of totally innocent taxpayers having a positive interest in an opposite finding or temporal limitation;
![Page 11: 1 Retroactivity of ECJ Judgments EATLP 2010 Peter J. Wattel University of Amsterdam Hoge Raad der Nederlanden](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022072014/56649ead5503460f94bb4a1f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Conclusions
• No retroactivity without predictability;• ECJ case law in direct tax matters is too
inconsistent to merit unlimited retroactivity;• Unlimited retroactivity produces too much
windfall effect and too little learning effect; • Where the Member State involved acted in good
faith, the effects of a finding of incompatibility should be limited to the future, except for taxpayers who brought claims - on the basis of the same point of EU law - before the date of referral.