Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Blagoevgrad (Bulgaria) lodged on 16 February 2021 – МV – 98 v Nachalnik na otdel ‘Operativni deynosti’ – grad Sofia v glavna direktsia ‘Fiskalen kontrol’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-97/21)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Administrativen sad Blagoevgrad

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: МV – 98

Defendant: Nachalnik na otdel ‘Operativni deynosti’ – grad Sofia v glavna direktsia ‘Fiskalen kontrol’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite

Questions referred

Are Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC ¹ of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, for an act consisting in not having registered the sale of goods and not having recorded it by issuing a document evidencing the sale, administrative proceedings for the ordering of a coercive administrative measure and administrative penalty proceedings for the imposition of an assets penalty may be brought against the same person in a cumulative manner?

If that question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, for an act consisting in not having registered the sale of goods and not having recorded it by issuing a document evidencing the sale, administrative proceedings for the ordering of a coercive administrative measure and administrative penalty proceedings for the imposition of an assets penalty may be brought against the same person in a cumulative manner, taking account of the fact that that legislation does not at the same time impose on the authorities competent for conducting the two sets of proceedings and on the courts the obligation to ensure the effective application of the principle of proportionality with regard to the overall severity of all the cumulated measures in relation to the seriousness of the specific offence?

If Articles 50 and 52(1) of the Charter are found not to be applicable in the present case, must Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union then be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as Article 186(1) of the ZDDS [Zakon za danak varhu dobavenata stoynost (Law on value added tax)], which, for an offence consisting in not having registered the sale of goods and not having recorded it by issuing a document evidencing the sale, provides for the imposition on the same person of the coercive administrative measure of ‘sealing of business premises’ for a period of up to 30 days in addition to the imposition of an assets penalty under Article 185(2) of the ZDDS?

Is Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as not precluding measures introduced by the national legislature in order to safeguard the interest under Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, such as the provisional enforcement of the coercive administrative measure of ‘sealing of business premises’ for a period of up to 30 days in order to protect a presumed public interest, where judicial protection against that measure is limited to an assessment of a comparable private interest opposing that public interest?

____________

¹ OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1, Special edition in Bulgarian: Chapter 09 Volume 003 P. 7.