Order;Information — ECLI:EU:C:2025:913
Date: 2025-11-17
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Romania

Summary C-373/25 – 1 
Case C-373/25 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
30 May 2025 
Referring court: 
Curtea de Apel Alba Iulia (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
7 April 2025 
Appellant: 
Roata SRL, through its liquidator appointed by the court Braudit 
SPRL 
Respondents: 
Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală 
Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Brașov 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Rehearing of tax dispute proceedings at first instance concerning an action for 
annulment against fiscal administrative acts imposing additional tax obligations 
on the appellant in respect of value added tax (VAT) and corporation tax. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Is national legislation that, on the date of the facts [in question], did not 
provide for any link between tax proceedings and criminal proceedings and 
allowed the national public authorities and courts – in relation to the same 
factual situation and the same tax obligations – to establish liability in two 
[separate] proceedings, possibly with radically different outcomes, 
compatible with the principle of ne bis in idem enshrined in Article 50 of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and with the principle 
of legal certainty? 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-373/25 
 
2  
2. In the light of the criteria established by the [Court of Justice of the 
European Union in its judgment of 20 March 2018, Menci, C-524/15, 
EU:C:2018:197], does Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 
the European Union permit a Romanian tax court to use evidence obtained 
in parallel criminal proceedings, where national law did not provide at the 
time of the facts [in question] and does not currently provide for any 
coordination between the two proceedings at issue? 
3. Is the position of a criminal court that – despite being aware of the existence 
of parallel tax proceedings that might result in the total or significant 
annulment of the alleged unpaid tax obligations, which could have 
considerable direct consequences on the legal classification of the tax 
evasion charges – moves to convict the party concerned without waiting for 
the conclusion of the tax proceedings consistent with the principle of ne bis 
in idem enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the 
European Union and with the principle of legal certainty? 
Provisions of law relied on 
Provisions of national law 
– Legea nr. 571 din 22 decembrie 2003 privind Codul fiscal (Law No 571 of 
22 December 2003 establishing the Tax Code) 
Article 1(3) of that law provided that ‘in tax matters, the provisions of this Code 
shall take precedence over any provisions of other legislative acts, and in the event 
of conflict between those provisions, the provisions of the Tax Code shall apply’. 
Article 3(b) of that law provided that ‘the taxes and duties governed by this code 
shall be based on the following principles: … b) the certainty of taxation, through 
the development of clear legal rules, so that they do not result in arbitrary 
interpretations, and [so that] the terms, the methods and the amounts to be paid are 
precisely determined for each taxpayer, such that taxpayers can fulfil and 
understand the tax burden imposed on them and can determine the consequences 
of their financial management decisions on their tax burdens’. 
– Ordonanța nr. 92 din 24 decembrie 2003 privind Codul de procedură 
fiscală (Order No 92 of 24 December 2003 establishing the Code of Tax 
Procedure) 
Article 32 (which established, inter alia, the general jurisdiction of the tax 
authorities for the management of tax claims and the exercise of tax inspection 
activities); Article 108 (which established that the tax authorities were to refer to 
the authorities responsible for criminal prosecution in relation to findings made 
during tax audits that could constitute evidence of criminal offences); Article 109 
(which governed tax audit reports); Article 205 (which provided for the possibility 
ROATA 
 
3 
of challenging fiscal administrative acts by means of administrative appeal); and 
Article 218 (which governed the notification of decisions on the outcome of 
administrative appeals and of judicial appeals that could be brought against such 
decisions). 
Provisions of EU law 
TEU, Article 19(3)(b) 
TFEU, Article 267 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’), Article 47, 
first and second paragraphs, Article 48(2) and Articles 50, 52 and 53 
Provisions of international law 
European Convention on Human Rights (‘the ECHR’), Articles 6 and 13 
Protocol No 7 to the ECHR, Article 4 
Case-law relied on 
Case-law of the EU courts 
Judgment of 20 March 2018, Menci, C-524/15, EU:C:2018:197 (‘the Menci 
judgment’), and judgment of 9 July 2015, Salomie and Oltean, C-183/14, 
EU:C:2015:454 
Case-law of international courts 
Judgment of the ECtHR of 21 October 2014, Lungu and Others v. Romania (‘the 
ECtHR judgment in Lungu v. Romania’), § 46: ‘… the simultaneous and parallel 
conduct of two independent proceedings concerning the same facts, which led the 
criminal division of the Court of Appeal to determine a new assessment of the 
facts in question – fundamentally the opposite of the previous judgment of the 
commercial division of the same Court of Appeal – violated the principle of legal 
certainty …’. 
Judgments of the ECtHR of 15 November 2016, A. and B. v. Norway; of 18 May 
2017, Johannesson and Others v. Iceland; of 29 July 2008, Teodorescu v. 
Romania; and of 24 March 2009, Tudor Tudor v. Romania. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 Between January and April 2015, the appellant was subject to a tax audit. In the 
course of that audit, inspectors from the Administrația Județene a Finanțelor 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-373/25 
 
4  
Publice Brașov (Provincial Administration of Public Finances of Brașov, 
Romania) (‘the Brașov AJFP’) identified acts and facts that could constitute 
evidence of the offence of tax evasion and, for that reason, filed a criminal 
complaint with the competent public prosecutor’s office. 
2 At the end of the tax audit, on 23 April 2015, the Brașov AJFP issued a tax audit 
report and a notice of assessment. That notice of assessment imposed additional 
tax obligations on the appellant in the amount of 6 362 914 Romanian lei (RON) 
for VAT, corporation tax, and interest and penalties relating to VAT and 
corporation tax. 
3 Two proceedings were initiated following that investigation, namely criminal 
proceedings and tax proceedings. 
4 With regard to the criminal proceedings, on 4 July 2016, the competent public 
prosecutor’s office issued a bill of indictment, following which the appellant and 
two natural persons, D.V.V. and C.L.E., were committed for trial before the 
Tribunalul Brașov (Brașov Regional Court, Romania). In its judgment of 
6 October 2022, that court found, inter alia, that the defendant D.V.V. was the 
person who had actually coordinated the criminal activity in question. 
5 With that judgment, which became final following examination of the appeals by 
means of a criminal decision of 18 July 2023 delivered by the Curtea de Apel 
Brașov (Court of Appeal of Brașov, Romania), the defendant D.V.V. was 
sentenced to six years’ imprisonment and the appellant to a fine of RON 30 000 
and the additional penalty of dissolution, for the offence of tax evasion. D.V.V., 
C.L.E. and the appellant were ordered to pay – jointly and severally – the amount 
of RON 3 172 184.63 as a liability to the State budget. 
6 With regard to the tax proceedings, the appellant lodged a complaint against the 
tax audit report and the notice of assessment of 23 April 2015 before the Direcția 
Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor (Complaint Settlement Department) 
within the Agenția Națională de Administrare Fiscală (National Tax 
Administration Agency) (‘the ANAF’), which dismissed it as unfounded by a 
decision of 26 September 2019. 
7 The appellant lodged a tax appeal seeking the annulment of the ANAF’s decision 
of 26 September 2019, the tax audit report and the notice of assessment of 
23 April 2015. That appeal was initially upheld in part by the Curtea de Apel Alba 
Iulia (Court of Appeal, Alba Iulia, Romania), which examined the appeal as the 
court of first instance and which is the referring court, by judgment of 
29 December 2022, which was challenged before the Înalta Curte de Casație și 
Justiție (High Court of Cassation and Justice, Romania). That latter court 
overturned that judgment and referred the case back to the referring court. 
8 In the proceedings following the referral of the case back to the court of first 
instance, the referring court requested that both the judicial decisions in the 
criminal proceedings and the evidence produced in those proceedings be included 
ROATA 
 
5 
in the case file. For her part, the appellant submitted evidence used in her defence 
in the abovementioned criminal proceedings. 
9 Essentially, the appellant is arguing before the referring court that it cannot 
consider the evidence obtained in the criminal proceedings because doing so 
would result in an infringement of her right to a fair trial and the rights of the 
defence, and of the principle of ne bis in idem and the principle of legal certainty. 
The appellant has asked the referring court to refer several questions to the Court 
of Justice for a preliminary ruling. 
Essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
10 The appellant asserts that the principle of ne bis in idem and the principle of legal 
certainty have been infringed because the criminal courts did not take into account 
the parallel tax proceedings, which should have been decided before the criminal 
proceedings. Consequently, the evidence obtained in those proceedings cannot be 
considered in the main proceedings. 
11 In fact, first, both the criminal proceedings and the tax proceedings concern the 
same tax-related facts. Since these are tax matters and considering that the offence 
of tax evasion presupposes the existence of certain damage, the tax court should 
have ruled on the tax proceedings first to ascertain whether such damage existed. 
12 Second, in tax matters, the tax authorities have exclusive jurisdiction to rule on the 
tax position of a taxpayer, and the acts they issue may be subject only to review 
by the tax courts. Neither the public prosecutor nor the criminal courts have 
jurisdiction in such matters. 
13 Third, in the light of Article 1(3) of Law No 571/2003 establishing the Tax Code, 
the provisions of that code take precedence over the provisions of substantive and 
procedural criminal law. Although this law is no longer in force and the new Tax 
Code has not incorporated the provisions of Article 1(3), both the matters 
governed by the Tax Code and the powers and jurisdiction of the tax authorities 
are clearly established. 
14 Fourth, the appellant relies on the Menci judgment to argue that the Romanian 
legislation is not compatible with the criteria established by the Court in that 
judgment and that evidence obtained in criminal proceedings cannot, under any 
circumstances, be used in tax proceedings. Therefore, from an initial perspective, 
the two proceedings in question are conducted according to different rules. From 
another perspective, the courts called upon to rule on the two proceedings in 
question have different areas of specialisation, and the only court with specialised 
jurisdiction in tax matters is the tax court, and under no circumstances is it the 
criminal court. From a third perspective, the tax court cannot verify the extent to 
which an individual’s procedural rights and guarantees have been respected in 
criminal proceedings. From a fourth perspective, the value of the evidence 
acquired in the criminal proceedings has already been established by the criminal 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-373/25 
 
6  
court, and the tax court would not be able to assess the evidence based on its own 
reasoning, since it did not obtain it directly. From a fifth perspective, there is no 
provision in national legislation harmonising the two proceedings in question to 
ensure that taxpayers’ rights are respected. From a sixth perspective, the balance 
between the private interests of the parties and the public interest – which the 
legislature sought to guarantee through the rules of civil procedure governing 
evidence – would be compromised. 
15 Fifth, contrary to the respondents’ arguments, the appellant claims that tax 
proceedings are not intended to recover the damage owed to the State and that 
criminal proceedings are not intended to punish unlawful conduct. Therefore, in 
the present case, the damage was actually recovered in the criminal proceedings 
and not in the tax proceedings. However, the criminal court did not consider either 
the tax audit report or the notice of assessment, but – rather – ordered that the 
evidence be gathered again, using that evidence as the basis for its judgments. 
16 Sixth, the appellant relies on the ECtHR judgment in Lungu v. Romania to argue 
that the tax court cannot be bound by the judgment of a non-specialised court, 
namely the criminal court, since the tax court is the only court that can determine 
whether the appellant is subject to additional tax obligations legally established by 
the tax authorities. Both the principle of ne bis in idem and the principle of legal 
certainty have been infringed, since, at the time the facts occurred, no national 
legislation established a link between tax proceedings and criminal proceedings. 
This therefore leads to a situation where the administrative authorities and the 
courts – in relation to the same specific tax situation and the same tax 
obligations – would determine a taxpayer’s liability in two [separate] proceedings, 
with the possibility of radically different outcomes. 
17 Seventh and last, the appellant asserts that the two proceedings at issue were 
conducted in parallel, without any coordination between them. None of the judges 
hearing the case actually addressed the issue of the correlation between the 
proceedings, so as to give effect to the principles of legal certainty and ne bis in 
idem. The appellant criticises the criminal judges for ignoring the existence of the 
ongoing tax proceedings, in violation of the ECtHR judgment in Lungu v. 
Romania. She considers that the respondents cannot rely on the judgments 
delivered in the criminal proceedings in the present tax dispute. 
18 The respondents argue that the two proceedings in question can be conducted in 
parallel because they pursue different objectives. Indeed, tax proceedings aim to 
determine tax claims and recover sums owed to the State budget, while criminal 
proceedings aim to punish criminal conduct. The national legislation and the case-
law of the Court would allow dual proceedings under certain conditions, 
especially if there is adequate coordination between [the two proceedings]. 
19 The respondents also point out that under national law, in the event of pending 
criminal proceedings, civil courts must stay proceedings in cases before them 
relating to the same facts until the final decision in the criminal proceedings has 
ROATA 
 
7 
been handed down. In fact, Article 19(2) of the Codul de procedură penală (Code 
of Criminal Procedure) establishes that the judgment of the criminal court has the 
force of res judicata before the civil court under the conditions laid down by law. 
Given the principle of res judicata, which is of considerable importance both in 
the legal order of the European Union and in national legal systems, the parallel 
conduct of the two proceedings at issue would not be contrary to EU law. 
Reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
20 The referring court finds that two proceedings, one tax and one criminal, were 
conducted in parallel against the appellant in relation to the same factual situation 
and the same tax obligations, without any coordination between them. That court 
considers that it cannot resolve the dispute before it without a determination as to 
whether the principle of legal certainty and the principle of ne bis in idem preclude 
national legislation that, at the time of the facts in question, did not provide for 
any link between the abovementioned proceedings and allowed the national public 
authorities and courts – in consideration of the same factual situation and the same 
tax obligations – to establish liability in two [separate] proceedings, possibly with 
radically different outcomes. 
21 On the one hand, the referring court notes that the appellant has challenged the 
reliance by the respondents in the main proceedings on the judgments delivered in 
the criminal proceedings. These judgments conflict with the ECtHR judgment in 
Lungu v. Romania, since the criminal courts did not take into account the 
existence of the tax proceedings. On the other hand, the respondents argue that, 
given the different purposes of the two proceedings at issue, conducting them in 
parallel is justified and, in order to give a correct ruling in the main proceedings, 
the referring court should consider the criminal findings that have been finally 
decided by the criminal court. 
22 The referring court also notes that the parties to the criminal proceedings included 
the appellant and D.V.V., the latter being the person who actually coordinated the 
criminal activity examined in those proceedings, whereas it is only the appellant 
who is party to the tax proceedings. The appellant asserts that her right to a fair 
trial and her rights of defence have not been respected, since two parallel 
proceedings were conducted against her, even though their subject matter was 
identical. 
23 Both the criminal proceedings and the tax proceedings essentially concern the 
underlying situation of the transactions carried out by the appellant, where the 
referring court is required to determine, after the final decision in the criminal 
proceedings, whether the appellant knew or should have known that the disputed 
transactions – namely the transactions for the purchase of goods, services and 
works coordinated by D.V.V. – were part of a VAT fraud. Similarly, according to 
the instructions contained in the judgment delivered by the Romanian High Court 
of Cassation and Justice, the referring court must examine the legal relationship 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-373/25 
 
8  
under tax law at issue in the proceedings from the perspective of the appellant’s 
arguments regarding illegality and the corresponding defences put forward by the 
respondents, taking into account the specific attributes of the grounds used to 
justify each tax obligation being imposed. 
24 On the other hand, the referring court states that clarification is needed as to 
whether the position of a criminal court that – despite being aware of the existence 
of parallel tax proceedings that might result in the total or significant annulment of 
the alleged unpaid tax obligations, which could have significant direct 
consequences on the legal classification of the tax evasion charges – moves to 
convict the party concerned without waiting for the conclusion of the tax 
proceedings is consistent with the principle of ne bis in idem and with the 
principle of legal certainty. The referring court points out that, at the time of the 
facts, Romanian national law did not require that tax proceedings and criminal 
proceedings be coordinated, or that a final decision needed to be reached in tax 
proceedings before a final decision could be reached in criminal proceedings. In 
this regard, the referring court considers that paragraphs 25, 26, 61 and 62 of the 
Menci judgment are relevant. 
25 The referring court observes that, while the appellant is invoking the principle of 
ne bis in idem and the principle of legal certainty and argues that the tax court 
cannot be bound by a judgment issued by a non-specialised court, namely the 
criminal court, the respondents argue, on the contrary, that, in order to decide the 
case appropriately, the tax court must consider the criminal findings definitively 
decided by the criminal court. In the present case, the issue arises as to whether 
the tax court may use and reassess evidence obtained in parallel criminal 
proceedings that were finally decided before the tax dispute arose. Taking into 
account the criteria laid down in the Menci judgment, there is a need for 
clarification as to whether the principle of ne bis in idem, enshrined in Article 50 
of the Charter, allows that tax court to use such evidence, even though the national 
law did not provide at the time of the facts [in question] and does not currently 
provide for any coordination between the two proceedings at issue.