Request for preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Blagoevgrad in Bulgaria. Interpretation of art 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Parties to the main proceedings: ‘Ati-19’ EOOD (applicant) and Nachalnik na otdel ‘Operativni deynosti’ – Sofia v Glavna direktsia ‘Fiskalen kontrol’ pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (defendant)
Article in the EU VAT Directive 2006/112/EC
Article 273
Member States may impose other obligations which they deem necessary to ensure the correct collection of VAT and to prevent evasion, subject to the requirement of equal treatment as between domestic transactions and transactions carried out between Member States by taxable persons and provided that such obligations do not, in trade between Member States, give rise to formalities connected with the crossing of frontiers.
The option under the first paragraph may not be relied upon in order to impose additional invoicing obligations over and above those laid down in Chapter 3.
Facts
- The applicant is a one-person company called ‘Ati-19’.
- On August 3, 2023, financial inspectors conducted an audit on the company’s business premises.
- During the audit, a test purchase was made, but no fiscal cash receipt was issued for the payment.
- A daily statement was prepared by the fiscal recording device, indicating a different sales turnover than the actual cash found.
- Minutes were drawn up as evidence of the audit results.
- An administrative offense notice was issued, initiating administrative criminal proceedings against the company.
- A fine was imposed on the company for the offense committed.
- An administrative enforcement order was issued, authorizing the sealing of the business premises.
- The order was served to the company’s legal representative, setting a date for sealing the premises.
- The company filed an action to lift the administrative decision and also applied for a stay of provisional enforcement.
In the request for a preliminary ruling, the scope of judicial review and the effectiveness of the procedure under Article 166(2) of the APK are questioned in relation to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Question
Must Article 47(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as not precluding national rules on protection against the provisional enforcement of measures introduced by the national legislature to safeguard the interest referred to in Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, in the context of which the scope of judicial review is limited to the existence of damage suffered?
Source
Similar ECJ Cases
- Join the Linkedin Group on ECJ VAT Cases, click HERE
- VATupdate.com – Your FREE source of information on ECJ VAT Cases
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
