Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu (Poland) lodged on 22 April 2024 – M.B. v Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu
(Case C-277/24, Adjak) 1
Language of the case: Polish
Referring court
Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny we Wrocławiu
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: M.B.
Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej we Wrocławiu
Questions referred
Are Articles 205 and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax 1 in conjunction with Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (the rule of law, respect for human rights), as well as Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the right to property), Article 41 thereof (the right to good administration) and Article 47 thereof (the right to an effective remedy and the right to a fair trial), and (as guaranteed under EU law) the principle of proportionality, the right to a fair hearing and the rights of the defence, to be interpreted as precluding national legislation and the national practice based thereon which deny a natural person (a member of the Management Board of a legal person) – who may be jointly and severally liable for the VAT debt of the legal person with all his or her private assets – the right to participate actively in the procedure for determining that legal person’s tax debt in the form of a final decision of the tax authority, while at the same time that natural person, in separate proceedings seeking to determine his or her joint and several liability for the legal person’s VAT debt, is deprived of an adequate means of effectively challenging the findings and assessments which have been made previously concerning the existence or the amount of that legal person’s tax debt and which are set out in the final decision of the tax authority issued previously without the participation of that natural person, which decision therefore constitutes a precedent in those proceedings under a national provision confirmed by national practice?
____________
1 The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.
1 OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.