Corrected CJEU Translation Raises Questions Over Historic Tax Decisions

Summary

• A reported error in the Polish translation of Court of Justice of the European Union judgments may have influenced domestic tax decisions imposing substantial liabilities on taxpayers. Although the translation has reportedly been corrected officially, affected authorities and courts may not yet have consistently reflected that correction.
• The issue illustrates the importance of checking the authoritative language versions and context of CJEU judgments where a translated expression is decisive. Taxpayers involved in pending proceedings may need to determine whether arguments or decisions rely on wording that has subsequently been corrected.
• Businesses should identify open audits, appeals or litigation potentially affected by the mistranslation and seek case-specific advice on available procedural remedies. A correction does not automatically establish that every earlier decision was wrong or can now be reopened.

Article

A reported correction to the Polish-language version of Court of Justice of the European Union case law has raised concerns that domestic tax authorities and courts may have relied on inaccurate wording when deciding high-value tax disputes.

According to Rzeczpospolita, the translation error contributed to decisions imposing liabilities amounting collectively to hundreds of millions of Polish zlotys. The incorrect wording has reportedly been officially corrected, but the article indicates that the correction may not yet be fully recognised in tax administration and judicial practice.

CJEU judgments are central to the interpretation of harmonised EU tax law. While all official language versions are authentic, differences between translations can create significant problems where a particular word or phrase influences the legal test applied by a national court. In such circumstances, comparison with other language versions, the judgment’s reasoning and the objectives of the relevant EU legislation may be necessary.

The practical implications will depend on the particular judgments, provisions and domestic cases concerned. A corrected translation does not necessarily mean that every decision citing the earlier version reached an incorrect result. Courts may have relied on additional reasoning, and the underlying EU-law interpretation may remain unchanged when the judgment is read as a whole.

The procedural position is also critical. Taxpayers with pending audits, appeals or court cases may be able to draw the corrected wording to the attention of the relevant authority. Cases that have already become final present a more complex question because national rules govern when a completed proceeding can be reopened or a final decision challenged.

Tax and legal teams should review material Polish disputes involving CJEU jurisprudence, particularly where the reasoning turns on the specific translated expression highlighted in the article. The review should compare the corrected Polish text with other official language versions and examine how the national authority or court used the disputed wording.

Any remedial action will require case-specific legal analysis, including limitation periods and procedural admissibility. Businesses should avoid assuming that the translation correction automatically cancels historic liabilities, but they should not overlook its potential relevance to open cases and legally available extraordinary remedies.

Source 

• Rzeczpospolita, “A translator’s mistake costs taxpayers billions: What will the government do about it?”, 8 September 2026

---

---