Resumption of tax proceedings on the basis of an EU court judgment
On 1 September 2024, an amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the CJEU came into force, according to which, in the event of a preliminary question from a national court, the Court is obliged to refer the case to the Court of First Instance (EU Court). The above applies to cases involving, inter alia, VAT, customs and excise duties, as well as compensation for air traffic delays.
The amendment to the Rules of Procedure is intended to relieve the burden on the CJEU and shorten the waiting time for the preliminary ruling. However, in light of the changes presented, a question arises:
Will the CJEU’s ruling be able to constitute grounds for reopening proceedings under Article 240 § 1(11) of the Tax Ordinance?
As explained by Piotr Lach of Thedy & Partners, according to the regulation in question, in a case concluded by a final decision, proceedings are resumed if: 11) the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union affects the content of the issued decision. It follows from a literal interpretation that this provision provides for the resumption of tax proceedings only on the basis of a ruling of the CJEU, so that a preliminary ruling of the EU Court of First Instance, despite its potential impact on the substance of the issued decision, does not fulfil this condition.
However, bearing in mind the principles of interpretation of Community law, and the fact that the analogous problem does not arise in administrative court proceedings (pursuant to Article 272 § 3 of the PPSA , it is possible to resume proceedings also in the event that such a need arises from a ruling of an international body acting on the basis of an international agreement ratified by the Republic of Poland), it may be concluded that the current legal state leaves significant procedural doubts, at least until the regulations of the Tax Ordinance are adjusted by the Legislator. However, no legislative work is currently underway in this respect. Taking into account the significant risk that the authorities will refuse to repeal the existing decisions due to the determination of the absence of grounds for resumption, it remains therefore to wait for the presented issue to be resolved by the administrative courts.