Summary
- Background of the Case: On April 24, 2025, the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Sofia Administrative Court) referred a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) concerning national legislation impacting VAT compliance and penalties for goods imported from other EU Member States.
- Legal Questions Raised: The court seeks clarification on whether Article 325 TFEU and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights preclude national laws that allow for confiscation of goods and financial penalties based on non-compliance with data declaration obligations, particularly regarding their proportionality and compatibility with EU law.
- Concerns Over Property Rights: The request also questions if the cumulation of financial penalties and confiscation under the Bulgarian Tax and Social Security Procedure Code constitutes a disproportionate interference with property rights, potentially conflicting with Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Questions
1. Must Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that laid down in Articles 121a(3) and 278b(3) of the Danachno-osiguritelen protsesualen kodeks (Tax and Social Security Procedure Code; ‘the DOPK’), under which, on account of non-compliance with the obligation relating to prior declaration of data, a provisional protective measure involving confiscation of the goods or lodging of a security amounting to 50% of the invoice value can be ordered in respect of each shipment of goods of high fiscal risk made from another Member State of the European Union to the Republic of Bulgaria, and, at the same time, a financial penalty amounting to 40% of the taxable amount of the goods shipped, but not less than BGN 5 000, may be imposed?
2. Must Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that national legislation such as that laid down in Articles 121a(3) and 278b(3) of the DOPK, under which a financial penalty and the confiscation of the goods which were the subject matter of the offence can be cumulated in favour of the State, is impermissible in that it constitutes a disproportionate penalising interference with property rights, which is not proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued?
Source Curia
- Join the Linkedin Group on ECJ/CJEU/General Court VAT Cases, click HERE
- VATupdate.com – Your FREE source of information on ECJ VAT Cases
