Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2026:354
Date: 2026-04-23
Language of the case: Polish

Summary C-197/25 – 1 
Case C-197/25 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date received: 
11 March 2025 
Referring court: 
Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
3 February 2025 
Appellant: 
A. sp. z o.o. 
Other party to the proceedings: 
Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Zielonej Górze 
  
Subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings 
Refusal to refund an overpayment of tax on civil-law transactions in a case 
involving the conversion of a limited partnership into a general partnership 
Subject matter and legal basis of the reference 
Interpretation of Directive 2008/7; Article 267 TFEU 
Question referred 
Must Article 9 of Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning 
indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 2008 L 46, p. 11), which allows  a 
Member State to choose not to recognise entities operating for profit referred to in 
Article 2(2) of the directive, such as general partnerships, as capital companies be 
interpreted to mean that that Member State is also free to choose whether or not to 
levy capital duty on such entities? 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-197/25 
 
2  
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on 
the raising of capital: Articles 2, 9 
Provisions of national law referred to 
Law of 9 September 2000 on the taxation of civil-law transactions: 
Article 1 
1.1. Tax shall be chargeable on: 
(1) the following civil-law transactions: (…) 
(k) the founding documents of a company or partnership; 
(2) amendments to the documents referred to in paragraph 1 if they give rise to 
an increase in the tax base for tax on civil-law transactions, notwithstanding 
paragraph 3(4); (…) 
3. In the case of the founding document of a company or partnership, the 
following shall be considered to be an amendment to the document: 
(1) in the case of a partnership – a contribution or increased contribution whose 
value leads to an increase in the assets of the partnership or an increase in its 
capital, a loan granted to the partnership by a member, additional payments or 
donations by a member to the partnership of property or property rights for use 
free of charge; 
(2) in the case of a capital company – an increase in the initial capital from 
contributions or from the company’s funds and extra payments; 
(3) a conversion or merger, if this results in an increase in the assets of a 
partnership or an increase in the initial capital of a capital company; 
(…) 
Article 1a 
For the purposes of this Law: 
(1) the following shall be partnerships: civil partnerships, general partnerships, 
professional partnerships, limited partnerships and limited joint-stock 
partnerships; 
(2) the following shall be capital companies: limited liability companies, joint-
stock companies or European companies; 
A. 
 
3 
(…) 
Article 2 
Tax shall not be chargeable on the following: (…) 
(6) the founding documents of a company or partnership and amendments to 
them in connection with: 
(a) mergers of capital companies, 
(b) conversions of a capital company into a different capital company; 
(c) a contribution to a capital company, in return for shares in it: 
- of the business of the capital company or an organised part of it, 
- of shares in another capital company giving a majority of votes in it, or of 
further shares in the event that the company to which those shares are contributed 
already holds a majority of votes.. 
2. Ustawa z dnia 15 września 2000 r. - Kodeks spółek handlowych (Law of 
15 September 2000 establishing the Code of Commercial Companies): 
Article 4 
1. For the purposes of this Law: 
(1) the following shall be partnerships: general partnerships, professional 
partnerships, limited partnerships and limited joint-stock partnerships, 
(2) the following shall be capital companies: limited liability companies and 
joint-stock companies, 
(…) 
Article 22 
1. A general partnership is a partnership which carries on a business under its own 
business name and which is not another commercial company. 
2. Each partner shall be liable without limitation for the partnership’s debts with 
all his or her assets, jointly and severally, together with the other partners and with 
the partnership, taking into account Article 31. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-197/25 
 
4  
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure and the main arguments of 
the parties to the main proceedings 
1 In a judgment handed down on 7 July 2022, the Wojewódzki Sąd 
Administracyjny w Gorzowie Wielkopolskim (Regional Administrative Court, 
Gorzów Wielkopolski; ‘the WSA’) dismissed an action by the applicant against a 
decision of the Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Zielonej Górze 
(Director of the Tax Administration Chamber, Zielona Góra, ‘the DIAS’) of 
18 March 2022 concerning a refusal to refund an overpayment of tax on civil-law 
transactions. 
2 The court of first instance, the WSA, stated in its reasoning that tax on civil-law 
transactions should be levied on amendments to the founding documents of a 
partnership involving the conversion of a limited partnership into a general 
partnership in a situation where the value of the contributions to the converted 
partnership corresponded to the value of the contributions to the partnership to be 
converted. In the opinion of the WSA, the authority had been right to find that tax 
on civil-law transactions should be levied on amendments to the founding 
documents of a partnership or company if the conversion of a partnership 
increased its assets. 
3 According to the WSA, the authority had also been correct to find that the 
increase in assets referred to in Article 1(3)(3) of the Law on the taxation of civil-
law transactions corresponded to the value of the contributions made to the limited 
partnership. If the assets of the partnership resulting from a conversion (the value 
of the contributions to the general partnership) exceeded the assets subject to tax 
on civil-law transactions (the value of the contributions) for the partnership to be 
converted, or in other words the limited partnership in the case under examination, 
tax on civil-law transactions would be levied on this excess, since it had not been 
taxed previously. Tax on civil-law transactions is therefore to be levied on the 
difference between the value of the assets contributed to the general partnership 
and the amount of the limited partnership’s assets that had previously been taxed. 
The court of first instance stated that the above finding was based on 
Article 1(1)(2), Article 6(1)(8)(f) and Article 9(11)(a) of the Law on the taxation 
of civil-law transactions. As a result, it found that the tax authorities had 
reasonable grounds for refusing to refund an overpayment of tax on civil-law 
transactions. 
4 The partnership brought an appeal on a point of law before the Naczelny Sąd 
Administracyjny (Supreme Administrative Court, ‘the NSA’, referring court,) 
against the judgment by the WSA. 
5 In an order dated 26 June 2024, the adjudicating panel of the NSA stated that a 
seven-judge panel of the NSA should rule on the following legal issue, which 
raised serious questions: 
A. 
 
5 
‘In the event that a partnership is converted into a different type of partnership, 
should the contributions referred to in Article 6(1)(8)(f) of the Law [on the 
taxation of civil-law transactions] be understood to mean only contributions made 
by the partners in the partnership, or also assets acquired by the partnership to be 
converted during its existence, within the meaning of Article 28 [of the Law 
establishing the Code of Commercial Companies], which become part of the 
assets of the converted partnership as a result of the conversion?’ 
6 The adjudicating panel of the NSA observed that the essence of a conversion as 
provided for in Article 551 et seq. of the Law establishing the Code of 
Commercial Companies was not that a new entity was created, but merely that the 
legal form of the entity was changed (going-concern principle). 
7 There was no change in individual partners’ shares in the partnership’s profits as a 
result of the conversion, the partners’ contributions were defined in the same 
amount and form as in the founding documents of the limited partnership, there 
was no change in the composition of the partners, and furthermore the partners in 
the partnership did not make any additional monetary or non-monetary 
contributions at the time of the conversion. All of the assets of the partnership to 
be converted became the assets of the converted partnership (the ‘closing balance’ 
of the partnership to be converted corresponded to the ‘opening balance’ of the 
converted partnership as at the date of the conversion). 
8 The dispute essentially involves deciding whether tax on civil-law transactions 
should be levied on the conversion of a limited partnership into a general 
partnership in the circumstances of the case at hand if a new entity has not been 
created, and there has merely been a change in the entity’s legal form (going-
concern principle). 
Brief statement of and reasons for the reference 
9 In the opinion of the seven-judge panel of the NSA, it is firstly necessary to clarify 
whether the relevant tax on civil-law transactions can in principle be levied on the 
abovementioned operation (involving the conversion of a limited partnership into 
a general partnership). 
10 The structure of a Polish general partnership means that such an entity can be 
recognised as a capital company within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive 
2008/7 (Article 3(2) first sentence of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 
1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital). This raises the question 
of whether Poland made use of the powers conferred upon it (right of option) 
under Article 9 of Directive 2008/7 (Article 3(2) second sentence of Directive 
69/335). Failure to make use of these powers should give rise to a finding that the 
general partnership (‘for the purposes of levying capital duty’) is a capital 
company within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive 2008/7 (Article 3(1) 
second sentence of Directive 69/335). If this is the case, the abovementioned 
operation (the conversion) would be exempt from tax on civil-law transactions 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-197/25 
 
6  
pursuant to Article 5(1)(d)(i) of Directive 2008/7. According to the 
abovementioned provisions of the directive, Member States are not to subject 
capital companies to any form of indirect tax whatsoever in respect of the 
conversion of a capital company into a different type of capital company. 
11 In so far as it includes the taxation of legal transactions involving the founding 
documents of companies or amendments thereto, the tax on civil-law transactions 
is a tax on the raising of capital (an ‘indirect tax’) within the meaning of Directive 
2008/7, which replaced Directive 69/335 on 1 January 2009. 
12 An assessment of whether the structure of the Polish general partnership was also 
covered by the requirements of Directive 69/335 on the date when the legal 
transaction under examination was carried out is significant in so far as the 
classification of such a partnership as a capital company within the meaning of 
Article 3(2) second sentence of Directive 69/335, in the context of the prohibition 
on compliance with the standstill rules, would make it necessary for this structure 
to be treated identically under the provisions of Directive 2008/7. Pursuant to 
Article 5(1)(d)(i) of Directive 2008/7, however, the Member States are not to 
subject capital companies to any form of indirect tax whatsoever in respect of 
alteration of the constituent instrument or regulations of a capital company, and in 
particular the conversion of a capital company into a different type of capital 
company. 
13 In the light of Article 2(1)(a) and Section 21 of Annex I to Directive 2008/7, 
‘capital company’ means companies under Polish law known as ‘spółka akcyjna’ 
(joint-stock company) and ‘spółka z ograniczoną odpowiedzialnością’ (limited 
liability company). The provisions of Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 69/335 contain 
an identical approach. 
14 The scope of application of Directive 2008/7 in this respect was however 
expanded by the provisions set out in Article 2(1)(b) and (c), and also in 
Article 2(2). According to Article 2(1)(b), ‘capital company’ means any company, 
firm, association or legal person the shares in whose capital or assets can be dealt 
in on a stock exchange. According to Article 2(1)(c) of the directive, however, for 
the purposes of this directive ‘capital company’ means any company, firm, 
association or legal person operating for profit, whose members have the right to 
dispose of their shares to third parties without prior authorisation and are only 
responsible for the debts of the company, firm, association or legal person to the 
extent of their shares. Article 3(1)(a)-(c) of Directive 69/335 were equivalent to 
the provisions of Article 1(1)(a)-(c) of Directive 2008/7. 
15 In turn, Article 2(2) of Directive 2008/7 (Article 3(2) first sentence of Directive 
69/335) states that any other company, firm, association or legal person operating 
for profit shall be deemed to be a capital company. 
16 A Polish general partnership cannot be classified as a capital company within the 
meaning of Article 2(1)(a) to (c) of Directive 2008/7 [Article 3(1)(a) to (c) of 
A. 
 
7 
Directive 69/335]. However, its structure meets the criteria for a capital company 
laid down in Article 2(2) of Directive 2008/7 (Article 3(2) first sentence of 
Directive 69/335), since a general partnership is a partnership that operates for 
profit as a general rule. 
17 In the case of entities that are referred to in Article 2(2) of Directive 2008/7 but at 
the same time do not meet the requirements set out in Article 2(1)(a) to (c) (for 
example a Polish general partnership), Article 9 of Directive 2008/7 (similarly to 
Article 3(2) second sentence of Directive 69/335) provided an option for a 
Member State to choose not to regard certain entities as capital companies. 
18 It is therefore of crucial importance to determine whether Poland made use of the 
right of option provided for under Article 9 of Directive 2008/7 (Article 3(2) 
second sentence of Directive 69/335). 
19 On 1 May 2004, Article 1a – outlining the fundamental legal institutions used as a 
basis for the taxation of civil-law transactions – was added to the Law on the 
taxation of civil-law transactions. Article 1a(1) listed the following as 
partnerships: civil partnerships, general partnerships, professional partnerships, 
limited partnerships and limited joint-stock partnerships. Article 1a(2) listed the 
following as capital companies: limited liability companies and joint-stock 
companies. On 1 January 2009, European companies were added to the list of 
capital companies. 
20 The question of whether Poland exercised the abovementioned right of option has 
given rise to controversy, resulting in divergent interpretations in the case-law. 
21 The following circumstances are arguments suggesting that Poland did not make 
use of this right: 
1) the glossary in Article 1a(1) and (2) of the Law on the taxation of civil-law 
transactions is technical in nature, and is intended merely to facilitate use of the 
sections of the Law where the legislature uses the terms ‘partnership’ and ‘capital 
company’; 
2) an analysis of the provisions of the Law on the taxation of civil-law 
transactions leads to the conclusion that Poland essentially chose not to make use 
of the right of option, since the scope of the abovementioned Law uniformly 
covers all types of companies, without making a distinction between partnerships 
and capital companies; 
3) the simple fact that Article 1a(1) and (2) of the Law on the taxation of civil-
law transactions contains a list of partnerships and capital companies does not 
mean that Article 3(2) second sentence of Directive 69/335 has been implemented, 
since there is no unambiguous indication that ‘for the purposes of levying capital 
duty’ Poland has chosen not to regard as capital companies within the meaning of 
the directive the partnerships listed in Article 1a(1) of the Law on the taxation of 
civil-law transactions, whereas the legislative standards that apply in Poland 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-197/25 
 
8  
require a clear answer to be given to this question, particularly if this distinction 
results in differing tax consequences for identical factual circumstances; 
4) the distinction between partnerships and capital companies in Article 1a(1) 
and (2) of the Law on the taxation of civil-law transactions essentially duplicates 
the classification laid out in Article 4(1)(1) and (2) of the Law establishing the 
Code of Commercial Companies, with the addition of civil partnerships and 
European companies in Article 1a(1) of the Law on the taxation of civil-law 
transactions; 
5) if the list of different types of partnerships in Article 1a(1) of the Law on the 
taxation of civil-law transactions were intended to mean that, for the purposes of 
levying ‘capital duty’, the taxable basis for companies not regarded as capital 
companies differs from the taxable basis for the capital companies referred to in 
Article 1a(2) of the Law on the taxation of civil-law transactions, this would be an 
inconsistent distinction, since there are at present no doubts as to whether a 
limited joint-stock partnership, for example (in the light of both of the 
abovementioned directives) should be regarded as a capital company, as decided 
by the Court (see, for example, judgment of 22 April 2015, C-357/13, Drukarnia 
Multipress, EU:C:2015:253); 
6) ‘Among other things, the objective of Article 2(2) of Directive [2008/7] 
dictates a solution based on the recognition of all Polish partnerships as capital 
companies within the meaning of the directive.’ It follows from the Court’s 
judgment in Case C-357/13, Drukarnia Multipress, that the objective of this 
provision is to prevent the choice of a particular legal form from resulting in the 
different fiscal treatment of transactions which, from an economic point of view, 
are equivalent; 
7) it follows from Directive 2008/7 (recital 4) that the economic effects of 
capital duty are detrimental to the regrouping and development of undertakings. In 
the long term, this duty should be abolished (a conclusion which is also suggested 
by recital 5). It is however hard to imagine a situation in which the tax on civil-
law transactions, as a capital duty, would be abolished for capital companies 
alone, and kept in place for partnerships. 
22 As a result, this raises the question whether the distinction between entities made 
in the Law on the taxation of civil-law transactions (namely, capital companies or 
partnerships) means that the Polish legislature intended at the same time to make a 
distinction between the way in which tax is levied on identical operations carried 
out by these two types of entities. It should be recalled that certain operations 
carried out by capital companies within the meaning of both Directives are exempt 
in Poland from the levying of tax on civil-law transactions, whereas non-capital 
companies are still subject to this tax. 
23 This includes the following: 
A. 
 
9 
- legal operations relating to certain types of non-monetary contributions to a 
company, having regard to the Polish legislature’s infringement of the tax-
related standstill rules; 
- ‘shareholder loans’ granted to capital companies, inter alia with a view to 
Poland’s infringement of the standstill rules (see the Court’s judgment of 
16 June 2011, C-212/10, Logstor ROR Polska, EU:C:2011:404); 
- and, from 1 January 2009, also the operations referred to in Article 5 of 
Directive 2008/7, including the conversion of a capital company into a 
different type of capital company [Article 5(1)(d)(i)] and the restructuring 
activities referred to in Article 4 [Article 5(1)(e)]. 
24 A question which was substantively similar to that in the present case and which 
related to the compatibility of such a situation with EU law was referred to the 
Court (as the second of two questions) by the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny 
w Krakowie (Regional Administrative Court, Kraków) in an order dated 12 April 
2013. In the judgment of 22 April 2015, C-357/13, Drukarnia Multipress, the 
Court deemed it unnecessary to provide an answer to the abovementioned 
question, since the Court had answered the main question (regarding the nature of 
a limited joint-stock partnership) in its judgment. The current question referred for 
a preliminary ruling however concerns a question that has not yet been settled. 
This question is of major practical importance, since the size and scale of activity 
(based on economic criteria) of some of the partnerships currently trading render 
them wholly indistinguishable from typical capital companies. 
25 In order to settle this question, it is therefore necessary to carry out an 
interpretation of Article 9 in conjunction with Article 2(2) of Directive 2008/7. 
Pursuant to Article 2(2), for the purposes of this directive, any other company, 
firm, association or legal person operating for profit is to be deemed to be a capital 
company. A general partnership meets the requirements of this definition, and 
should therefore be recognised as a capital company within the meaning of that 
provision. However Article 9 of Directive 2008/7/EC states that Member States 
may for the purposes of levying capital duty choose not to regard as capital 
companies the entities referred to in Article 2(2). 
26 When interpreting this provision, doubts arise as to whether the choice by a 
Member State not to recognise an entity as a capital company in line with this 
provision means that the Member State has complete freedom to levy capital duty 
on the entity, and thus as to whether the levying of such a tax falls outside the 
scope of Directive 2008/7/EC. Particular doubts arise in cases such as that 
pending before the NSA, or in other words where a general partnership is not 
regarded as a capital company under the Law on the taxation of civil-law 
transactions, but is at the same time subject to the same capital duty levied upon 
capital companies. According to the Law on the taxation of civil-law transactions, 
however, the exemptions and exceptions applied to capital companies in 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-197/25 
 
10  
application of the provisions of Directive 2008/7 do not apply to general 
partnerships. 
27 In consideration of the Court’s previous case-law, it would appear reasonable to 
take the position that a choice not to recognise the entities defined in Article 2(2) 
of Directive 2008/7 as capital companies should result in the Member State being 
free to levy capital duty. This is the position which may follow from the Court’s 
judgment of 16 May 2002, Palais am Stadtpark Hotelbetriebsgesellschaft, 
C‑508/99, EU:C:2002:295, in which the Court found that Article 10 of the 
previously applicable Directive 69/335 did not preclude the levying of capital duty 
in connection with the conversion of a partnership into a capital company, even if 
the capital in the partnership had earlier been subject to a tax characterised by the 
features of a capital duty. The Court indicated that the taxes and fees levied by the 
Member States on contributions to companies other than those subject to the 
provisions of Directive 69/335 were not subject to the provisions of that Directive 
(paragraphs 32 and 27 of the judgment). In an Opinion issued on the case, the 
Advocate-General stated that if a Member State did not recognise a given entity as 
a capital company, a capital duty levied on that entity would not fall within the 
scope of application of Directive 60/335 and could be freely regulated at national 
level (paragraph 27 of the Opinion, EU:C:2002:9). 
28 However, the abovementioned judgment concerned a situation different to that in 
the present case, that is to say where a Member State which does not recognise a 
given entity as a capital company levies the same capital duty on the entity as on 
capital. In particular, in paragraph 26 of the abovementioned judgment of 16 May 
2002, Palais am Stadtpark Hotelbetriebsgesellschaft, C‑508/99, EU:C:2002:295, 
the Court found that, under the provisions of Article 3(1) and (2) of Directive 
69/335, the directive applies to the capital companies defined in the directive and 
to companies operating for profit which are regarded as capital companies and 
which are regarded as such by the Member States for the purpose of levying 
capital duty. In view of this, it is not clear whether a Member State which levies a 
national capital duty on a given entity as though it were a capital company is at the 
same time entitled not to recognise it as a capital company in the context of 
application of the directive. 
29 It should also be noted that, in its judgment of 7 June 2007, Commission v Greece, 
C‑178/05, EU:C:2007:317,, the Court found that Article 3(2) of Directive 69/335 
(corresponding to Article 9 of Directive 2008/7) allows for an exemption from 
capital duty for certain categories of entities regarded as equivalent to capital 
companies (paragraph 44 of the judgment). The Court furthermore referred to its 
judgment of 15 July 1982, Felicitas Rickmers-Linie, 270/81, EU:C:1982:281, 
which related to a situation where the Member State, invoking Article 3(2) of 
Directive 69/335, made limited partnerships exempt from capital duty 
(paragraph 3 of the judgment). As in the judgment of 12 November 1987, Amro 
Aandelen Fonds, 112/86, EU:C:1987:488, the Court noted that Article 3(2) of 
Directive 69/335 allows Member States to make an increase in capital in entities 
A. 
 
11 
other than capital companies exempt from capital duty (paragraph 12 of the 
judgment). 
30 In these judgments, Article 3(2) of Directive 69/335 (now replaced by Article 9 in 
conjunction with Article 2(2) of Directive 2008/7) was thus interpreted as 
allowing Member States to make certain types of company exempt from the 
levying of capital duty. 
31 This means that it is unclear whether Article 9 of Directive 2008/7, which 
corresponds to Article 3(2) of Directive 69/335, allows the Member States to 
make certain entities exempt from the levying of capital duty as defined in the 
directive or in other words to exclude these entities from the scope of the 
provisions of the directive, thus granting the Member States complete freedom to 
levy capital duty on companies granted an exemption under Article 9 of Directive 
2008/7. Assuming that this provision is interpreted to mean that Member States 
are allowed to make such entities exempt from the scope of application of the 
provisions of the directive, they may levy capital duty on companies which they 
do not recognise as capital companies following the same rules as those governing 
the levying of capital duty on capital companies, and will not be subject to the 
harmonisation obligations arising under Directive 2008/7. In spite of the fact that 
they levy capital duty on certain entities, therefore, they will be entitled to make 
such entities exempt from other obligations, e.g. the prohibition on the taxation of 
restructuring activities under Article 5 or the standstill rules under Article 7 of 
Directive 2008/7. If the second of the interpretations is assumed to be correct, the 
Member State’s choice not to recognise a given entity as a capital company would 
mean that that company would be exempt from the levying of capital duty. 
32 The referring court wishes to note that in view of the objective of Directive 
2008/7, namely the elimination of barriers to the free movement of capital 
[recitals 2 and 3 of the directive], capital companies, or in other words companies 
whose capital can be traded and moved (according to the Advocate-General in the 
Opinion on the abovementioned case C-508/99, Palais am Stadtpark, 
paragraph 26, EU:C:2002:9) should be subject to the harmonisation provided for 
in the directive. This means that it is reasonable to assume that this harmonisation 
does not cover indirect taxes levied on operations concerning the assets of 
companies other than capital companies, and thus that the capital duties levied on 
such companies are not subject to the provisions of Directive 2008/7, so that the 
Member States are granted regulatory freedom in this area. 
33 As indicated above, however, the referring court believes that the Court’s previous 
case-law does not provide any unequivocal indications in this respect. At the same 
time, this issue is not uniformly settled in the case-law of the Polish courts. It was 
found in most judgments that the levying of capital duty on partnerships is not 
subject to the provisions of Directive 69/553 or its replacement, Directive 2008/7; 
however, certain judgments have found that the levying of capital duty on 
partnerships means that Poland has not chosen to exempt these partnerships as 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-197/25 
 
12  
provided for in Article 3(2) of Directive 69/355 (currently Article 9 of Directive 
2008/7). 
34 An interpretation of Article 9 in conjunction with Article 2(2) of Directive 2008/7 
is essential in order for the referring court to rule on the question pending before 
it, since it will allow an assessment of whether the levying of tax on restructuring 
activities carried out by a limited partnership which becomes a general 
partnership, as provided for in the Law on the taxation of civil-law transactions 
and as in the case pending before the referring court, is subject to the regulatory 
scope of Directive 2008/7, and consequently whether it complies with the 
provisions of that directive.