CJEU Case C‑544/24 / Judgment

,,Nekilnojamojo turto valdymas“ BUAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (First Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
30/04/2026
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2026:356
  • CJEU Case C‑544/24 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 273 – Article 49(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – Obligations deemed necessary to ensure the correct collection of VAT and to prevent fraud – National legislation providing for a set of rules in respect of default interest relating to VAT arrears – Charging of default interest – Principle of proportionality

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules:

    Article 325 TFEU and Article 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, read in the light of the principle of proportionality

    must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which lays down the detailed rules for calculating the rate of default interest relating to value added tax arrears irrespective of the nature and seriousness of the infringement established by the tax authority, and precludes that authority from applying an interest rate lower than that provided for by that legislation or waiving the calculation of a part of the amount of the default interest or exempting a taxpayer from the payment of that interest, with the exception of the cases exhaustively defined by that legislation.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    41. In the present case, the referring court is hearing an action brought by the applicant in the main proceedings against the decision of the tax authority of 13 May 2024, by which the tax authority rejected its request for exemption from the payment of the default interest relating to VAT arrears and the tax penalty imposed on it. It is in that context that that court is uncertain, in essence, whether the mechanism in respect of the imposition of default interest provided for by the Law on tax administration is compatible with Article 325 TFEU and Article 273 of the VAT Directive, read in the light of Article 49(3) and Article 50 of the Charter.

    42. As regards Article 50 of the Charter, it should be remembered, to begin with, that proceedings concerning offences relating to VAT which seek to ensure the correct collection of that tax and to avoid fraud, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, constitute implementation of the VAT Directive and, therefore, of EU law for the purposes of Article 51(1) of the Charter. Thus, the provisions of national law which deal with such proceedings come within the scope of application of the Charter (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 April 2017, Orsi and Baldetti, C‑217/15 and C‑350/15, EU:C:2017:264, paragraph 16 and the case-law cited).

    43. That said, it must also be remembered that the applicability of the principle ne bis in idem presupposes the delivery of a final judgment convicting or acquitting in respect of the same offence. According to the case-law of the Court, the principle of ne bis in idem aims to prevent an undertaking from ‘being found liable or proceedings being brought against it afresh’, which assumes that that undertaking was found liable or declared not liable by an earlier decision that can no longer be challenged. Article 50 of the Charter specifically targets the repetition of proceedings concerning the same material act which have been concluded by a final decision (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 April 2019, Powszechny Zakład Ubezpieczeń na Życie, C‑617/17, EU:C:2019:283, paragraphs 29 and 32, and order of 20 May 2021, ENR Grenelle Habitat and Others, C‑88/20, EU:C:2021:407, paragraph 33).

    ...

    45. In that regard, it should be noted that Article 50 of the Charter prohibits the imposition, with respect to identical facts, of several criminal penalties as a result of different proceedings brought for those purposes (judgment of 20 March 2018, Menci, C‑524/15, EU:C:2018:197, paragraph 35). Article 50 does not govern the situation of a person who is subject, for one and the same offence relating to a tax obligation, to an administrative procedure and to criminal proceedings, as long as no conviction or acquittal is rendered in respect of the same facts in the context of the second set of proceedings, which is distinct from and independent of the first, as in the present case. In those circumstances, Article 50 of the Charter is not applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings.

    ...

    48. By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 325 TFEU and Article 273 of the VAT Directive, read in the light of Article 49(3) of the Charter, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which provides for the payment of default interest relating to VAT arrears and which, irrespective of the nature and seriousness of the infringement established by the tax authority, fixes the amount of that interest without that authority being able to reduce one of the components of that amount and to apply a lower rate of interest than that provided for by that legislation or to waive a part of that amount.

    ...

    50.  In that regard, the referring court seeks to clarify, first, the extent to which the default interest relating to VAT arrears that the applicant in the main proceedings was required to pay following a tax inspection under an administrative procedure is criminal in nature for the purpose of Article 49(3) of the Charter and, second, whether such national legislation complies with the principle of proportionality, as interpreted in the context of the application of Article 325 TFEU and Article 273 of the VAT Directive.

    51. In accordance with the Court’s settled case-law on the interpretation of Article 50 of the Charter and transposed in Article 49(3) thereof, three criteria are relevant for the purpose of assessing the criminal nature of a penalty, namely the legal classification of the offence under national law, the intrinsic nature of the offence and the degree of severity of the penalty that the person concerned is liable to incur (judgments of 20 March 2018, Menci, C‑524/15, EU:C:2018:197, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited, and of 22 March 2022, bpost, C‑117/20, EU:C:2022:202, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited).

    ...

    53. Although it is for the referring court to assess, in the light of those criteria, whether the imposition of default interest relating to VAT arrears is criminal in nature, for the purposes of Article 49(3) of the Charter, the Court, when giving a preliminary ruling, may nevertheless provide clarification designed to give the national court guidance in its assessment (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 March 2018, Menci, C‑524/15, EU:C:2018:197, paragraph 27 and the case-law cited).

    ...

    63. In the light of the foregoing, and subject to verification by the referring court, none of the three criteria set out in paragraph 51 above for classifying the default interest at issue in the main proceedings as a measure criminal in nature appears to be satisfied. In so far as it is not criminal in nature, that default interest cannot be assessed in the light of Article 49(3) of the Charter

    64. Even if a measure such as that at issue in the main proceedings does not come within the scope of Article 49(3) of the Charter, it is for the referring court to ascertain whether that measure complies with the principle of proportionality, since the Court has jurisdiction to provide the referring court with interpretative guidance which will assist it in that regard. Observance of that principle, which constitutes a general principle of EU law, is binding on Member States when they are implementing that law, including in the absence of harmonisation of EU legislation in the field of sanctions applicable (judgment of 8 March 2022, Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld (Direct effect), C‑205/20, EU:C:2022:168, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited).

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)