Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:T:2026:278
Date: 2026-04-22
Language of the case: Romanian

Summary T-233/25 – 1 
Case T-233/25  
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: 
25 March 2025 
Referring court: 
Curtea de Apel Cluj (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
24 February 2025 
Appellant: 
Mokoryte SRL 
Respondents: 
Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj 
Ministerul Finanțelor – Direcția Generală de Soluționare a 
Contestațiilor 
Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings  
Appeal brought, in the context of a tax dispute, by the company Mokoryte SRL 
(also ‘the appellant’) against the Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj 
(District Directorate of Public Finances of Cluj, Romania; ‘the AJFP Cluj’), the 
Ministerul Finanțelor – Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor (Ministry 
of Finance – Directorate-General for the Settlement of Disputes, Romania) and the 
Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca (Regional 
Directorate-General of Public Finances of Cluj Napoca, Romania), against the 
judgment of the Tribunalul Cluj (Regional Court, Cluj, Romania) which dismissed 
its action seeking the annulment of a VAT assessment notice, of a tax audit report, 
and of the decision on the claim brought against these two acts. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request  
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE T-233/25  
 
2 
On the basis of Article 267 TFEU, the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Court of Appeal, Cluj, 
Romania) seeks, of its own motion, an interpretation of Article 90 of Directive 
2006/112  
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
In contractual relationships followed by subcontracting, in which there is an 
assignment of claims between the contractor and the subcontractor with the result 
that the subcontractor acquires a claim against the final beneficiary of the works, 
does Article 90 of Directive 2006/112/EC preclude the possibility of the taxable 
amount for VAT purposes being adjusted by the subcontractor assignee?  
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of 
value added tax: Article 2(1), Article 9(1), Article 24(1), Article 25(a), and 
Articles 62, 63, 73, 78, 90, 185 and 273 
Judgments of 7 November 2013, Tulică and Plavoşin (C-249/12 and C-250/12); 
of 15 October 2020, E. (VAT – Reduction of the taxable amount) (C-335/19); of 
8 May 2019, A-PACK CZ (C-127/18), and of 29 February 2024, Consortium Remi 
Group (C-314/22) 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Legea nr. 227/2015 privind Codul fiscal (Law No 227/2015 on the tax code; ‘the 
Tax Code’), Article 265 (definition of VAT), Article 266 (meaning of certain 
terms and expressions), Article 268 (taxable transactions), Article 269 (taxable 
persons and economic activity), Article 271 (supply of services), Article 280 
(chargeable event and chargeability – definitions), Article 281 (chargeable event 
in respect of supplies of goods and services), Article 282 (chargeability in respect 
of supplies of goods and services), Article 286 (taxable amount in respect of 
supplies of goods and services within the national territory), Article 287 
(adjustment of the taxable amount), Article 291 (rates) and Article 304 
(adjustment of deductible tax in the case of purchases of services and goods other 
than capital goods) 
According to Article 282(9), ‘in the case of the events referred to in Article 287, 
tax shall be chargeable on the date of the occurrence of one of those events, while 
the taxation arrangements, the applicable rates and the exchange rate shall be the 
same as those of the underlying transaction which gave rise to those events’. 
Article 287(d) provides as follows: ‘The taxable amount shall be reduced in the 
following cases: 
MOKORYTE 
 
3 
(d) where consideration for the goods or services provided cannot be collected 
due to the insolvency of the beneficiary or the implementation of a reorganisation 
plan approved and confirmed by a judgment of the court amending or cancelling 
the creditor’s claim. The adjustment is permitted from the date on which the 
court’s judgment confirming the reorganisation plan is delivered and, in the case 
of the insolvency of the beneficiary, from the date of the judgment or, as the case 
may be, of the order declaring insolvency, in accordance with insolvency law. The 
adjustment shall be made within five years from 1 January of the year following 
that in which the ruling confirming the reorganisation plan was delivered or that in 
which the insolvency was declared by judgment or, as the case may be, by order. 
Where the declaration of insolvency was made before 1 January 2019 and no 
final/final and irrevocable ruling to close the insolvency proceedings has been 
delivered before that date, the adjustment shall be made within 5 years from 
1 January 2019. The adjustment is permitted even if the reservation of the 
subsequent audit has been lifted, in accordance with the Code of Tax Procedure. 
By means of the adjustment, the reservation of the subsequent audit shall be 
reopened for the tax period in which the value added tax for the transaction 
subject to the adjustment became due. Where, after the adjustment of the taxable 
amount, the amounts relating to the claims in question are collected, the 
adjustment made shall be cancelled accordingly, up to the value of the amounts 
collected, by means of the tax return corresponding to the tax period during which 
they were collected.’ 
According to Article 304(1)(b), ‘(1) In so far as the rules relating to self-supply do 
not apply, the initial deduction shall be adjusted in the following cases: 
(b) if, after the VAT return has been submitted, some change occurs in the 
factors used to determine the deductible amount, including in the cases referred to 
in Article 287.’ 
Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 1/2016 pentru aprobarea Normelor metodologice de 
aplicare a Legii nr. 227/2015 privind Codul fiscal (Government Decision 
No 1/2016 approving the methodological rules for the implementation of Title VII 
of the Tax Code; ‘GD No 1/2016’) 
Paragraph 8 issued pursuant to Article 271 of the Tax Code 
‘(1) The supplies of services referred to in Article 271 of the Tax Code include 
all transactions that are not considered to be supplies of goods within the meaning 
of Article 270 of the Tax Code, including the sale of intangible fixed assets. 
(2) Pursuant to Article 271(2) of the Tax Code, in cases where several taxable 
persons acting in their own name are involved in the same supply of services, 
through successive transactions, regardless of the nature of the contract, each 
taxable person is deemed to be the purchaser and reseller, or to have received and 
supplied the service in question in its own name. Each transaction shall be treated 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE T-233/25  
 
4 
as a separate supply and taxed separately, even if the service is provided directly 
to the final beneficiary. 
Example: Company A provides advertising services for the products of Company 
B. The services are invoiced to Company C and Company C invoices Company 
B. Company C is deemed to have received and supplied advertising services in its 
own name.’ 
Paragraph 32 issued pursuant to Article 287 of the Tax Code 
‘(1) In the situations referred to in Article 287 of the Tax Code, suppliers of 
goods and/or services shall adjust the taxable amount of the tax after having made 
the supply or after invoicing for the supply, even if the supply has not been 
effected, but the events referred to in Article 287 of the Tax Code occur after the 
invoicing and the entry of the tax in the taxable person’s accounting records. To 
that end, suppliers/providers must issue invoices showing the amounts preceded 
by the ‘minus’ sign where the taxable amount is reduced or, as the case may be, 
without the ‘minus’ sign, if the taxable amount is increased, and shall send such 
invoices to the beneficiary. The provisions of this paragraph also apply to intra-
Community supplies. 
(4) Beneficiaries are obliged to adjust the right to deduct initially exercised, in 
accordance with Article 304(1)(b) and Article 305(4)(e) of the Tax Code, only in 
respect of the transactions referred to in Article 287(a) to (c) and (e) of the Tax 
Code. The provisions of this paragraph also apply to intra-Community 
acquisitions.’ 
Legea nr. 207/2015 – Codul de procedură fiscală (Law No 207/2015 on the Code 
of Tax Procedure), Article 21 (incurrence of tax claims and liabilities) 
Legea nr. 287/2009 privind Codul civil (Law No 287/2009 on the Civil Code; ‘the 
Civil Code’) 
Article 1568, under which the assignment of a claim transfers to the assignee (a) 
all the assignor’s rights in respect of the assigned claim and (b) the security rights 
and any other ancillary rights of the assigned claim. 
Article 1851, which provides that, through the contract, the contractor undertakes, 
at its own risk, to carry out a specific piece of work, whether material or 
intellectual, or to provide a specific service to the beneficiary in return for a price. 
Article 1852, which provides that, by means of the subcontract, the contractor 
may entrust to one or more subcontractors the performance of parts or elements of 
the work or services, unless the contract has been entered into in consideration of 
the contractor; in addition, the contractor shall be liable towards the beneficiary 
itself or the subcontractor. 
MOKORYTE 
 
5 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 On 7 November 2007, the appellant entered into a subcontract with Modern Bau 
SRL (‘Modern Bau’) for building insulation, curtain walling and aluminium 
window and door installation works relating to the ‘Global Plaza’ integrated 
business centre in the Tetarom 1 park in Cluj-Napoca, for a total amount of 
EUR 2 333 000 excluding VAT. The final beneficiary of the works was CBC 
Development Design SRL (‘CBC’) on the basis of the works contract of 
9 February 2007 entered into between Modern Bau and CBC. 
2 Since, in 2014, the general contractor Modern Bau had an outstanding debt to be 
paid to the appellant arising from the subcontracting contract, which was not paid 
due to the fact that CBC had not paid Modern Bau the outstanding debt arising 
from the works contract, the appellant brought an action before the Tribunalul 
Specializat Cluj (Specialised Court, Cluj, Romania) requesting that the debtor 
Modern Bau be ordered to settle the claim of RON 1 970 819.76 (including VAT) 
relating to invoices issued for the performance of the subcontracting contract. The 
appellant had collected VAT on these invoices. 
3 By civil judgment of 4 September 2015 delivered by the Specialised Court, Cluj, 
following the mediation agreement of 24 July 2015, the payment of the amount of 
RON 270 819.76 including VAT was made, while, in respect of the amount of 
RON 1 700 000 including VAT, a notarised assignment of the claim was made, 
through which the appellant received the right to the claim held by Modern Bau in 
relation to CBC, part of the secured claim in the total amount of 
RON 3 598 326.29; the assignor Modern Bau also transferred a property lien 
provisionally registered in the land register as security for the claim in the amount 
of RON 1 700 000. 
4 On 12 November 2014, the Specialised Court, Cluj ordered the opening of the 
general liquidation procedure in respect of CBC, on 10 December 2014, the 
liquidation of the debtor CBC was declared, and, on 28 April 2021, it was ordered 
that the liquidation procedure in respect of the debtor CBC be closed and that the 
latter be removed from the registers of the Oficiul Registrului Comerțului (Trade 
Register Office, Romania). 
5 On 22 December 2014, Modern Bau lodged an application for admission of the 
claim to CBC’s liabilities, which was granted by the liquidator; a claim of 
RON 9 401 352.39 was entered as a liability, of which RON 3 598 326.29 was 
registered as a claim secured by a property lien provisionally registered in the land 
register. 
6 Following the assignment of the claim, the debtor CBC’s final list of claims was 
amended and the appellant was included in the list of secured claims in the 
amount of RON 1 700 000 including VAT. 
7 CBC was the final beneficiary of the works carried out by the appellant as a 
subcontractor, the claim assignment agreement was entered into in the context of 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE T-233/25  
 
6 
the mediation agreement between the appellant and Modern Bau for the resolution 
of the dispute before the Specialised Court, Cluj, and the tax authorities found no 
evidence of any fraud in the claim assignment agreement. 
8 Before the period under audit, the appellant applied, by the VAT return submitted 
for the second quarter of 2021, for a refund of RON 265 358, which was rejected 
in its entirety by the assessment notice of 31 August 2021, and at the same time 
incurred additional VAT of RON 4 249. Since no objection was lodged against 
that assessment notice, it became final. 
9 According to that assessment notice, the VAT in respect of which a refund was 
sought results from the issuance of cancellation invoices to the beneficiary 
Modern Bau on 30 June 2021 (the VAT collected being ‘minus’ RON 265 358) 
and was entered in the VAT return for June 2021. 
10 The balance to be collected since 2009 from the client Modern Bau was 
RON 1 700 000, and following the registration of the cancellation invoices it 
became 0. The appellant proceeded in this manner by virtue of the fact that the 
notarised claim assignment agreement had been entered into, pursuant to which it 
acquired a secured claim in the amount of RON 1 700 000 against the assigned 
debtor CBC, registered as a liability of the company CBC, and, following the 
closure of the liquidation procedure and the removal [from the trade register] of 
the debtor company, it is entitled to the VAT adjustment on 30 June 2021. 
11 The tax authorities considered that the provisions of Article 287(d) of the Tax 
Code had been incorrectly applied, since the condition that the beneficiary of the 
services rendered, which, under the subcontract, is Modern Bau and not CBC, be 
in the process of being reorganised/liquidated has not been met, whereas the 
conclusion of the liquidation procedure of the assigned debtor CBC, the 
beneficiary of the work invoiced by Modern Bau, conferred the right to adjust the 
VAT on the direct supplier of the works, Modern Bau. 
12 The supply of services on the basis of the subcontract entered into with Modern 
Bau took place, and the appellant’s claim against Modern Bau is certain, since the 
invoices issued are based on estimates or progress reports accepted by the 
beneficiary. 
13 Prior to the issuance of the assessment notice of 31 August 2021, on 1 August 
2021 the appellant registered five invoices issued to Modern Bau for a total 
amount of RON 1 700 000, of which RON 265 358.45 was for VAT collected. On 
31 August 2021, by means of an accounting note, the assignment of the claim of 
24 July 2015 was registered and, following that registration, the balance of the 
client Modern Bau again became 0. 
14 On 9 December 2021, cancellation invoices were issued to CBC (which had 
already been removed from the trade register) marked ‘Article 287(d)’. In the 
explanations provided for these accounting entries, reference is made to the 
cancellation of the original works invoices issued to the client Modern Bau. 
MOKORYTE 
 
7 
15 By another judgment of 10 December 2014 of the Specialised Court, Cluj, upheld 
on appeal by the Court of Appeal, Cluj, it was found that there was a claim 
belonging to another creditor, Transilvania Construcții SA, a creditor ranking 
higher than the property lien securing the claim transferred to the appellant by 
Modern Bau, with the result that, following procedure for the liquidation of the 
company CBC, Transilvania Construcții SA was awarded the property which was 
the subject of the property lien. 
16 During the tax audit carried out at the appellant’s premises for the purposes of 
calculating the VAT return showing a negative amount with a refund option on 
25 January 2022, it became apparent that the VAT in respect of which the 
appellant sought the refund was the result of the issuance by the appellant, on 
9 December 2021, of cancellation invoices marked ‘Article 287(d)’ in respect of 
CBC (which had already been removed from the trade register). The tax 
authorities therefore considered that the reduction in the VAT collected by the 
appellant in the amount of RON 265 358 was unjustified and did not come within 
the scenario whereby the taxable amount may be amended as provided for in 
Article 287(d) of the Tax Code, relied on by the appellant. 
17 By means of the assessment notice of 2 March 2022 issued by the AJFP Cluj, 
additional VAT was charged to the appellant totalling RON 265 358 and, at the 
same time, the VAT return for a negative amount with a refund option of 
25 January 2022 was settled, in the sense that the claimed refund of the sum of 
RON 260 006 was rejected and it was established that additional VAT of 
RON 5 352 was owed. 
18 The appellant lodged a complaint against that assessment notice, which was 
rejected by decision of 25 April 2023 of the Direcția Generală de Soluționare a 
Contestațiilor. 
19 By an action lodged with the Regional Court, Cluj on 1 August 2023, Mokoryte 
SRL, in adversarial proceedings with the (then) defendants – the Direcția Generală 
Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca, the Ministerul Finanțelor – Direcția 
Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor and the Administrația Județeană a 
Finanțelor Publice Cluj – sought (i) the annulment of the decision of 25 April 
2023 issued by the Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor, (ii) the 
annulment of the assessment notice of 2 March 2022 and an order that the 
Administrația Județene a Finanțelor Publice Cluj grant the request for a full VAT 
refund in the amount of RON 265 358 and (iii) an order that the defendants pay 
the legal costs. 
20 In support of that action, Mokoryte SRL argued that Article 287(d) of the Tax 
Code is applicable and that the tax authorities’ argument that the assignment of a 
claim agreed with Modern Bau does not transfer the right to adjust the taxable 
amount as long as the beneficiary of the services is Modern Bau and not CBC is 
incorrect. The concept of beneficiary must be analysed in the overall factual 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE T-233/25  
 
8 
context of the case and not be limited to the subcontract entered into between the 
appellant and Modern Bau. 
21 Although contracts and subcontracts generate separate legal relationships, it 
cannot be ignored that the assignment of the claim was made with the general 
contractor Modern Bau and that the services actually rendered, as part of the 
subcontracting relationship, were performed for the benefit of the final beneficiary 
CBC, which is the assigned debtor. 
22 On the substance, the defendants submitted the following arguments: (a) in order 
for Article 287(d) of the Tax Code to apply, the consideration for the assigned 
goods or services must not be recoverable following the insolvency of the 
beneficiary; no direct legal relationship existed between the appellant and CBC, 
since the services supplied under the subcontract were provided to Modern Bau, 
and the appellant did not issue any invoice directly to the final beneficiary CBC; 
(b) according to the provisions of tax law, the right to adjust the taxable amount 
for VAT purposes relating to the goods/services for which the consideration has 
not been received is a right belonging to the taxpayer who made the supply, since 
it has the legal status of a non-transferable right intuitu personae; (c) in the case in 
question, the principle of VAT neutrality does not apply, since it is not a case of 
the deductibility of VAT, but of the reduction of the taxable amount for VAT 
purposes; (d) in relation to paragraph 26(8)(b) of GD No 1/2016, the appellant 
agreed for its claims against Modern Bau to be settled by accepting a claim of the 
same amount held by Modern Bau against CBC, which was declared insolvent, 
and the VAT paid was recovered when the payment obligations of Modern Bau 
towards the appellant were settled on the date on which the claim was assigned; 
(e) the issuance, on 9 December 2021, of the cancellation invoices by the 
appellant to CBC has no concrete justification, in that the recorded transactions 
were not the subject of any legal relationship between the appellant and CBC, 
which, on the date on which those invoices were issued, had been removed [from 
the trade register] and had no legal capacity. 
23 That action having been dismissed by the Regional Court, Cluj, the appellant 
brought an appeal before the Court of Appeal, Cluj, the referring court. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
24 In the grounds for the reference, the Court of Appeal, Cluj begins by recalling 
what the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court’) established in 
paragraphs 33 and 34 of the judgment in Tulică and Plavoșin and in 
paragraphs 17, 21, 22 and 26 of the judgment in A-PACK CZ. In that context, it 
observes that, although the Member States have the power to lay down the 
obligations which they consider necessary to ensure the correct collection of VAT 
and to prevent evasion, that power cannot allow them to exclude the reduction of 
the taxable amount for VAT purposes in the event of non-payment where, there 
being no fraud, the contractor’s claim against the final beneficiary of a contract 
MOKORYTE 
 
9 
has been assigned in order to settle the contractor’s own claim in respect of its 
subcontractor, while the assignee subcontractor is no longer in a position, 
objectively and definitively, to collect from the assigned debtor/final beneficiary 
of a contract the assigned claim following the latter’s insolvency and removal 
[from the trade register]. 
25 The appellant provided services on the basis of the subcontract entered into with 
Modern Bau, acquiring a right of claim against the latter, the invoices issued being 
based on estimates and progress reports accepted by the beneficiary, such that the 
chargeable event for the tax in respect of services giving rise to successive 
statements of account or payments, such as construction and assembly services, is 
deemed to have occurred on the date of issue of the progress reports, works 
reports and other similar documents enabling the services provided to be 
determined or, as the case may be, on the basis of the contractual provisions, on 
the date of their acceptance by the recipients [Article 281(1) and (7) of the Tax 
Code]; the tax becomes chargeable on the date on which the chargeable event 
occurs [Article 282(1) of the Tax Code], whereas the taxable amount for VAT 
purposes consists of everything that constitutes the consideration paid or to be 
paid to the supplier by the purchaser, the beneficiary or a third party, including 
subsidies directly linked to the price of the supply [Article 286(1)(a) of the Tax 
Code].  
26 Similarly, Modern Bau also supplied services on the basis of the contract entered 
into with CBC, acquiring a claim against CBC. Under paragraph 8(2) of GD 
No 1/2016, in cases where several taxable persons acting in their own name are 
involved in the same supply of services, through successive transactions, 
regardless of the nature of the contract, each taxable person is deemed to be the 
purchaser and reseller, or to have received and supplied the service in question in 
its own name. Each transaction shall be treated as a separate supply and taxed 
separately, even if the service is provided directly to the final beneficiary. 
27 Given the specific nature of the contract and subcontract, the appellant and 
Modern Bau can be considered to have collaborated within the contractual limits 
in order to carry out works for CBC. 
28 First, the referring court notes that Modern Bau and the appellant did not receive 
the price for the services rendered, since the final beneficiary, CBC, did not pay 
them. Secondly, following the awarding of the property subject to the lien to the 
mortgage creditor Transilvania Construcții SA, the appellant found itself, on the 
date the cancellation transactions of 9 December 2021 were carried out by means 
of the issuance of invoices to CBC marked ‘Article 287(d) of the Tax Code’, in a 
situation where there was no possibility of collecting the assigned claim, the tax 
authorities having found no fraudulent intent at the time the claim was assigned. 
29 Article 90 of the VAT Directive uses the concept of reduction of the taxable 
amount without, however, specifying the persons who may carry out such an 
operation, that is to say, whether the taxable amount can be adjusted only by the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE T-233/25  
 
10 
taxable person in whose assets the taxable amount was directly established and 
who has the status of supplier/provider of the goods/services (first scenario), or 
whether the taxable amount can also be adjusted by a taxable third party who 
acquires a claim from a taxable supplier who would have been entitled to reduce 
the taxable amount, following the conclusion of an agreement with the latter for 
the assignment of the claim (second scenario). 
30 It could be considered that the mere assignment of a claim does not automatically 
transfer the right to adjust the taxable amount, in so far as the tax regime derogates 
from civil law [Article 1568(1) of the Civil Code] in view of the need for the 
existence of a taxable person for VAT purposes. In other words, where a claim is 
assigned, if the assignee is a person exempt from VAT or a consumer, that person 
cannot rely on an adjustment of the taxable amount by reason of the acquisition, 
through the assignment of the claim, of the assignor’s rights in relation to the 
assigned claim. 
31 However, by refusing to reduce the taxable amount for VAT purposes, in the 
factual context of the present case, it could be considered that the limits strictly 
necessary to achieve the objectives laid down in Article 273 of Directive 2006/112 
are exceeded if any possibility of reducing that taxable amount is excluded, 
thereby imposing on the taxable assignee creditor the burden of paying an amount 
of VAT which that person would not have incurred in the course of its economic 
activities, which could also be contrary to the principle of VAT neutrality, which 
provides that the trader is entirely relieved of the burden of tax due or paid in the 
course of its economic activities which are themselves subject to VAT, since the 
taxable amount consists of the consideration actually received; in the present case, 
the claim is definitively irrecoverable. 
32 As regards paragraphs 44 and 45 of the judgment in Consortium Remi Group, the 
referring court notes that, in the absence of evidence of fraud at the time the 
agreement for the assignment of the claim was entered into, the limitation laid 
down in Article 287(d) of the Tax Code on the adjustment of the taxable amount 
for failure to receive consideration for the goods or services supplied in the event 
the beneficiary is declared insolvent must be disregarded by virtue of the direct 
effect of Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive. 
33 However, to accept the second scenario could give rise to a clear contradiction 
between Article 90 and Article 73 of the VAT Directive, since the taxable amount 
is defined as including everything which constitutes consideration paid or to be 
paid to the supplier or provider, such that only the latter can be regarded as being 
entitled to reduce the taxable amount, since the taxable assignee is not entitled to 
adjust the taxable amount instead and on behalf of the taxable assignor 
supplier/provider, irrespective of the degree of uncertainty as to the definitive 
nature of the total or partial non-payment of the price, the right being non-
transferable intuitu personae. 
MOKORYTE 
 
11 
34 It could be considered that, following the assignment of the claim at issue, the 
assignee does not have the status of service provider which gave rise to the 
assigned claim and cannot reduce the taxable amount in the event of definitive 
non-payment of the acquired claim. As regards the claim acquired through the 
assignment, Modern Bau is and remains the provider of the services for which 
CBC had to pay a price; Modern Bau was a taxable person at the time when the 
goods or services were supplied, the date on which the chargeable event occurred 
and the tax became chargeable, so that Modern Bau remains liable for payment of 
the VAT which it collected on behalf of the State. Only the right to recover the 
claim previously held by Modern Bau against CBC was assigned to the appellant, 
not the corresponding taxable amount constituted in Modern Bau’s assets. Modern 
Bau was and remains the creditor obliged to collect the VAT on behalf of the 
State in relation to the consideration paid or to be paid for the services supplied to 
CBC and is, consequently, the creditor entitled to amend the taxable amount a 
posteriori. 
35 However, according to the referring court, such reasoning would mean that, in the 
case in question, a reduction in the taxable amount can no longer be made, with 
the result that the tax authorities remain the beneficiary of a VAT charge for an 
amount which can no longer be collected. 
36 The referring court also refers to paragraphs 37 and 38 of the judgment of the 
Court in Case C-335/19, relating to the correlation between the adjustment of the 
taxable amount and the adjustment of the deductions initially made, and to 
paragraph 42 of that judgment, according to which those two adjustments need not 
be made at the same time, and points out that, in the event of CBC’s removal 
[from the trade register] and the impossibility of adjusting the initial deduction, 
there is a risk of loss of tax revenue. 
37 In Romanian law, the Romanian legislature has provided for the adjustment in 
Article 304(1)(b) of the Tax Code, but, in the implementing provisions of GD 
No 1/2016, the adjustment of the deductible tax carried out by the beneficiaries 
was excluded as regards the scenario provided for in Article 287(d) of the Tax 
Code [paragraph 32(4) relating to Article 287 of the Tax Code and 
paragraph 78(5)(a), relating to Article 304(1)(b) of the Tax Code)].