ECJ VAT Case – C-436/25 (EXOIL Paliwa) – Order – Assessment of Appeal Admissibility and Jurisdiction

Appeal – Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU – Directive 2006/112/EC – Common system of value added tax – Action for annulment brought against a Member State and concerning national legislation transposing that directive – Manifest lack of jurisdiction of the Courts of the European Union – Appeal manifestly unfounded

Background

By its appeal, EXOIL Paliwa sp. z o.o. asks the Court to set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 13 May 2025, EXOIL Paliwa v Poland (T-206/25, EU:T:2025:521) (‘the order under appeal’), by which the General Court dismissed, on the ground of manifest lack of jurisdiction, its action for annulment based on the fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU and seeking a declaration that Article 88 is incompatible, Paragraph 3a(4)(a) of the ustawa o podatku od towarów i usług (Law on the tax on goods and services) of 11 March 2004 (consolidated text, Dz. U. of 2024, item 361), as amended, with EU law, in particular with Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006, on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) and with the principle of proportionality.

Appeal

Appeal Dismissal Criteria: Under Article 181 of the Court of Justice Rules of Procedure, the Court can dismiss an appeal if it is manifestly inadmissible or unfounded, after consulting the Judge-Rapporteur and Advocate General.
Defendant Identification: The applicant, EXOIL Paliwa, named the Republic of Poland and the Council of the European Union as defendants, but the Court determined that only the Republic of Poland was a proper defendant, as the Council did not meet the necessary formalities to be included.
Grounds for Appeal: EXOIL Paliwa raised two grounds of appeal: the first claiming that the General Court incorrectly identified the Republic of Poland as the defendant rather than the Council, and the second arguing that the failure to name the Council constituted a formal defect that should have been rectified.
Jurisdiction and Admissibility: The Court clarified that it lacks jurisdiction to hear actions against member states and found EXOIL Paliwa’s appeal to be manifestly unfounded, particularly regarding the validity of Polish law in relation to EU law, as the action appeared to question provisions of Polish law rather than those of Directive 2006/112.
Costs Decision: The Court ruled that EXOIL Paliwa must bear its own costs, as the appeal was dismissed as manifestly unfounded before it could be served to the other party, thus incurring no costs for the Council.

Order

On those grounds, the Court (Sixth Chamber) hereby orders:

1. Dismisses the appeal as manifestly unfounded;

2. Orders EXOIL Paliwa sp. z o.o. to bear its own costs.

Source