Decision to review — ECLI:EU:C:2026:288
Date: 2026-03-26
Language of the case: Polish

Provisional text DECISION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE (Reviewing Chamber) 26 March 2026 (*) ( Review ) In Case C‑167/26 RX, PROPOSAL for review made by the First Advocate General, pursuant to Article 62 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, on 4 March 2026, THE COURT (Reviewing Chamber), composed of K. Jürimäe, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, President of the Court, acting as Judge of the Reviewing Chamber, F. Schalin (Rapporteur), M. Gavalec and Z. Csehi, Judges, makes the following Decision 1 The proposal for review made by the First Advocate General concerns the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 11 February 2026, Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej (T‑689/24, EU:T:2026:113), by which the General Court ruled on the request for a preliminary ruling made by the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Supreme Administrative Court, Poland). 2 By that judgment, the General Court ruled, in response to the question put by the referring court, that ‘Article 167, Article 168(a) and Article 178(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax [(OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1)] and the principles of value added tax (VAT) neutrality and of proportionality must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a taxable person may not assert his or her right to deduct input tax in a return submitted for a period in which he or she satisfied the substantive conditions for exercising that right if, during that period, he or she had not yet received the corresponding invoice, even though he or she did receive the invoice before submitting the return.’ 3 It follows from the third subparagraph of Article 256(3) TFEU that decisions given by the General Court on questions referred for a preliminary ruling may exceptionally be subject to review by the Court of Justice, under the conditions and within the limits laid down by the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, where there is a serious risk of the unity or consistency of Union law being affected. 4 Pursuant to Article 62 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, where the First Advocate General considers that there is a serious risk of the unity or consistency of Union law being affected, he may propose that the Court of Justice review the decision of the General Court. 5 In that regard, it is clear from Article 194(5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice that the Reviewing Chamber, where it has before it such a proposal for review, is to decide whether the decision of the General Court is to be reviewed. The decision to review the decision of the General Court is to indicate only the questions which are to be reviewed. 6 In the present case, the Reviewing Chamber considers it necessary to review the judgment of the General Court of 11 February 2026, Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej (T‑689/24, EU:T:2026:113). 7 The question to be reviewed is set out in point 2 of the operative part of the present decision. On those grounds, the Court of Justice (Reviewing Chamber) decides: 1. The judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 11 February 2026, Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej (T‑689/24, EU:T:2026:113), shall be reviewed. 2. The review shall concern the question whether, having regard, in particular, to the judgments of 29 April 2004, Terra Baubedarf-Handel (C‑152/02, EU:C:2004:268), and of 12 March 2026, Aptiv Services Hungary (C‑521/24, EU:C:2026:191), the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 11 February 2026, Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej (T‑689/24, EU:T:2026:113), affects the unity or consistency of Union law in that the General Court held that: Article 167, Article 168(a) and Article 178(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and the principles of value added tax (VAT) neutrality and of proportionality must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a taxable person may not assert his or her right to deduct input tax in a return submitted for a period in which he or she satisfied the substantive conditions for exercising that right if, during that period, he or she had not yet received the corresponding invoice, even though he or she did receive the invoice before submitting the return. 3. The interested persons referred to in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union are invited to lodge their written observations on that question at the Court of Justice within one month of service of the present decision. [Signatures] * Language of the case: Polish.