ECJ C-570/24 (Ecoserv) – Judgment – EU Excise Duty Liability and the Impact of National Criminal Judgments

On November 20, 2025, the ECJ released its judgement in the case C-570/24 (Ecoserv).

Context: Interpretation of Article 8(1)(a)(i) and (2) of Directive 2008/118/CE concerning liability for excise duties on missing goods, particularly when a company’s representative has been criminally convicted.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Excise duties — Directive 2008/118/EC — Article 8(1)(a)(i) and (2) — Person liable for excise duty — Quantity of ethyl alcohol missing from a company’s stocks — Managing director of a company guilty of misappropriation and failure to record accounts — Determination of the person liable for excise duty — Multiple persons liable — Effect of a judgment of a criminal court delivered in civil matters, acknowledging the sole liability of the managing director

Subject:
– Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC: Article 8(1)(a)(i) and (2);
– Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax: Articles 14, 73 and 78.

Summary

This briefing summarizes the key findings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Case C-570/24, concerning the liability of a legal entity (Ecoserv SRL) for excise duties on missing ethyl alcohol. The case centered on whether Ecoserv SRL, operating under a technological trial regime, was liable for excise duties when a quantity of alcohol went missing due to the embezzlement and tax fraud committed by its managing director, who was subsequently found solely responsible by a national criminal court for the civil damages to the state budget.

The CJEU ruled that:

Ecoserv SRL was liable for the excise duties: Despite not being a formally “authorized warehousekeeper,” its activities placed it in a “comparable situation,” making it responsible for the missing goods under a duty suspension regime.
Liability is “objective”: An entity’s liability for excise duties is not based on fault, but on its participation in an economic activity involving excise products under suspension. This responsibility persists even if an irregularity is caused by an employee acting against the company’s interest.
Joint and Several Liability Applies: EU law provides for joint and several liability where multiple parties are involved in an excise duty debt, and defines liable persons broadly to ensure duty recovery.
Criminal Judgments are Not Binding on Fiscal Liability: A national criminal court’s finding that an individual is solely responsible for civil damages to the state budget does not bind national courts when determining fiscal liability for excise duties under EU law, due to a lack of “identity of object” between the proceedings.

The decision underscores the broad scope of EU excise duty law in ensuring the collection of duties and safeguarding Member State financial interests, distinguishing fiscal liability from criminal and civil responsibility for damages.

The CJEU’s decision primarily interprets Council Directive 2008/118/CE on the general arrangements for excise duty, which, although abrogated, was applicable ratione temporis to the facts of the case.

Article 4(1) – “Authorized Warehousekeeper”: Defines an authorized warehousekeeper as a person (physical or legal) authorized to produce, process, hold, receive, or ship excise products under a suspension regime in a tax warehouse.
Article 7(1) & (2)(a) – “Release for Consumption”: States that excise duties become chargeable upon “release for consumption,” which includes “irregular release” ( sortie irrégulière) from a duty suspension arrangement.
Article 8(1)(a)(i) – “Persons Liable”: Identifies the persons liable for duties upon irregular release, including the authorized warehousekeeper, registered consignee, or “any other person proceeding to the release… or… any other person who participated in that release.”
Article 8(2) – “Joint and Several Liability”: Stipulates that “Where several debtors are liable for the same excise duty debt, they shall be held jointly and severally liable for payment of that debt.”
Article 16(1): Requires authorization for operating a tax warehouse, subject to conditions to prevent fraud or abuse.

Articles in the EU VAT Directive 2006/112/EC

Articles 14, 73 and 78.

Article 14
1. ‘Supply of goods’ shall mean the transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner.

Article 73 (Taxable amount)
In respect of the supply of goods or services, other than as referred to in Articles 74 to 77, the taxable amount shall include everything which constitutes consideration obtained or to be obtained by the supplier, in return for the supply, from the customer or a third party, including subsidies directly linked to the price of the supply.

Article 78
The taxable amount shall include the following factors:
(a) taxes, duties, levies and charges, excluding the VAT itself;
(b) incidental expenses, such as commission, packing, transport and insurance costs, charged by the supplier to the customer.
For the purposes of point (b) of the first paragraph, Member States may regard expenses covered by a separate agreement as incidental expenses.

Facts & Background

Ecoserv SRL, a Romanian company, was authorized to produce ethyl alcohol under a duty suspension regime for technological trials. In November 2015, an inspection revealed a shortfall of 21,909 liters of ethyl alcohol. Romanian tax authorities subsequently issued a tax assessment against Ecoserv for unpaid excise duties (798,495 RON) and VAT.
Separately, Ecoserv’s managing director was criminally convicted for embezzlement and tax fraud, having sold the missing alcohol for personal gain without recording the sales. Critically, the criminal court, in its civil aspect, found the managing director solely responsible for the prejudice to the state budget, rejecting the state’s claim against Ecoserv SRL.
Ecoserv then sought to nullify the tax assessment, arguing it constituted a “grave and manifest error” given the criminal court’s findings. This dispute led the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Cluj Court of Appeal, Romania) to refer questions to the CJEU regarding the interpretation of EU excise duty law.

Questions

1. For the purposes of Article 8(1)(a)(i) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/[EEC], read in conjunction with paragraph 2 of that [article], does the term ‘person liable to pay the excise duty …’ also cover a legal person who, with a view to obtaining a tax warehouse authorisation under the technical testing scheme, has produced ethyl alcohol under the supervision of the territorial customs authority [and] whose business assets have been found to be short of 21 909 litres of ethyl alcohol with an alcoholic strength of 96.16%?

2) Does the fact that those taxes were also imposed on that legal person by tax assessment No F-BN 77 of 4 March 2016, against which no administrative appeal was lodged in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Code of Fiscal Procedure, constitute a serious and manifest error in the application of harmonised EU law on excise duties and VAT, when, following the adoption of a tax assessment – imposing additional excise duties and VAT on that legal person in respect of the missing quantity of ethyl alcohol – against which no administrative appeal was lodged, a final criminal judgment has established that the sole person responsible for causing the damage to the State budget is the de facto director (general manager) of that company, who, on the basis of the same criminal intent, sold 21 909 litres of doubly refined alcohol from the company (of which he was an employee) worth 219 090 Romanian leu (RON) in the period February to June 2013 and was thereby guilty of embezzlement in the meaning of Article 295, paragraph 1, of the Cod penal (Criminal Code), and failed to enter in the accounts the income from the sale of the quantity of alcohol, thereby causing damage to the State budget in the amount of RON 915 562.74, which constitutes an act meeting the constituent elements of the criminal offence of tax evasion within the meaning of Article 9, paragraph 1, point (b), [and] paragraph 2 of Law No 241/2005?

3) Does EU law preclude a national court from applying the principle of the res judicata effect of a criminal judgment in a tax dispute concerning excise duties and VAT, where the application of that principle would prevent account being taken of the EU rules on excise duties and VAT, which also provide for the joint and several liability of legal persons and which have not been examined by the criminal courts in judgments which have become res judicata?

AG Opinion

None

Judgment

1. Article 8(1)(a)(i) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC,

must be interpreted as meaning that:

A legal person which, for the purpose of being authorised as a tax warehousekeeper, has produced ethyl alcohol under suspension of excise duty and in respect of which it has been found that a certain quantity of that alcohol is missing from its stocks falls within the concept of a person liable for the payment of those duties within the meaning of that provision.

(2) Article 8(1)(a)(i) and (2) of Directive 2008/118

must be interpreted as meaning that:

In order to determine the person or persons liable for the excise duties which have become chargeable within the meaning of those provisions, a national court is not bound by the civil operative part of a judgment of a criminal court definitively convicting a natural person, employee or director of a legal person, as solely liable for the damage caused to the State budget as a result of the diversion of a quantity of alcohol stored under suspension of excise duty at that State’s premises. artificial person.

Main Themes and CJEU’s Rulings

The CJEU addressed three key questions posed by the national court, which can be grouped into distinct themes:

1. Determination of the “Person Liable” for Excise Duties (Ecoserv SRL’s Status)

The first question asked if a company like Ecoserv, which produced alcohol under technological trials with missing stock, falls under the definition of a “person liable.”

“Comparable Situation”: The CJEU affirmed that Ecoserv SRL, despite not being a formally “authorized warehousekeeper,” was in a “comparable situation” (situation comparable à celle d’un entrepositaire agréé) to one. Ecoserv was authorized to produce ethyl alcohol under a duty suspension regime and under customs control, implying it managed stocks subject to such a regime. Therefore, it incurs similar obligations and liabilities to an authorized warehousekeeper.
Irrelevance of Internal Act: The Court stressed that it is immaterial whether the legal entity itself caused the irregular release. “It matters little that this legal entity, just like Ecoserv in the main proceedings, was not at the origin of the irregular release… this release being due to a person employed by it or representing it, such as Ecoserv’s managing director.”

2. The “Objective” Nature of Responsibility for Excise Duties

The CJEU clarified the basis of liability for excise duties in such circumstances.

Responsibility not fault-based: The responsibility of an authorized warehousekeeper (or comparable entity) is “objective.” It “rests not on its proven or presumed fault, but on its participation in an economic activity” involving excise products under a suspension regime.
Third-party fraud: Drawing on previous jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that “the authorized warehousekeeper remained liable for the payment of excise duties” even when an irregularity or fraud was committed by a third party.

3. Joint and Several Liability and Broad Definition of Liable Persons

The CJEU examined the principle of joint and several liability and the scope of “persons liable” under the Directive.

Explicit Provision: Article 8(2) of Directive 2008/118/CE expressly provides for “joint and several liability” (pluralité de débiteurs solidaires) when multiple debtors are liable for the same excise duty debt.
Broad Interpretation: The Directive broadly defines “persons liable” to include not just the authorized warehousekeeper but also “any other person having participated” in the irregular release. This broad approach is intentional. The “Union legislator thus intended to define broadly the persons liable for payment of excise duties in the event of irregularities, in order to ensure, as far as possible, the recovery of these duties” (assurer autant que possible le recouvrement de ces droits).

4. Distinction Between Fiscal and Criminal/Civil Liability: Non-Binding Nature of Criminal Judgments

A central issue was whether the national criminal court’s finding, which held the managing director solely responsible for civil damages, should preclude Ecoserv’s fiscal liability.

Distinct Legal Planes: The CJEU firmly distinguished the fiscal plane from the criminal and civil planes. The fact that the managing director “could have acted in his own interest and to the detriment of the said warehousekeeper only has an impact on the criminal plane, and not on the fiscal plane” (n’a d’incidence que sur le plan pénal, et non sur le plan fiscal).
No Res Judicata (Lack of “Identity of Object”): The Court ruled that the principle of res judicata ( autorité de la chose jugée) from the criminal judgment did not bind national courts in determining excise duty liability. This is because there was no “identity of object” (identité d’objet) between the civil aspects of the criminal judgment (concerning damages to the state budget) and the fiscal proceedings (concerning excise duty liability under EU law). The criminal proceedings determine responsibility for a specific offense and civil damages, while fiscal proceedings determine an objective tax obligation.
National Courts Not Bound: Consequently, a national court “is not bound by the civil findings of a final criminal court judgment… when determining who is liable for excise duties under EU law.”

Conclusion and Implications

The CJEU’s judgment in Case C-570/24 reinforces several fundamental principles of EU excise duty law:

Broad Scope of Liability: Entities operating with excise products under duty suspension, even under provisional or trial arrangements, are subject to the obligations and liabilities of authorized warehousekeepers.
Objective and Strict Liability: Liability for excise duties arising from irregular releases is objective and not contingent on the fault or intent of the warehousekeeper, ensuring revenue collection regardless of internal misconduct.
Effective Recovery of Duties: The principle of joint and several liability and the broad definition of liable persons are crucial mechanisms to “ensure, as much as possible, the recovery of excise duties,” safeguarding the financial interests of Member States.
Separation of Legal Spheres: Criminal or civil findings regarding an individual’s responsibility for damages do not automatically translate to, or negate, an entity’s fiscal liability for excise duties under EU law. This maintains the integrity and effectiveness of the EU harmonized tax regime.

This ruling clarifies that national judicial findings in criminal matters do not override the specific provisions of EU excise duty law designed to ensure the effective collection of taxes on excisable goods.

Source