Case T-356/25, Rapera: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis (Greece) made on 8 May 2025 – AY v Anexartiti Archi Dimosion Esodon
Date: 2025-05-08
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: VAT, debt, financial occupation, tax collection, tax offence, tax return, taxpayer








C_202504181EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/4181


4.8.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis (Greece) made on 8 May 2025 – AY v Anexartiti Archi Dimosion Esodon


(Case T-356/25, Rapera
                (1)
)

(C/2025/4181)
Language of the case: English

Referring court

Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: AY

Defendant: Anexartiti Archi Dimosion Esodon

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 205 of Directive 2006/112 (2) and the principle of proportionality be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Article 55(d) of Nomos 2859/2000 (Law 2859/2000), under which a person who (irrespective of the term used to describe that person under national law, namely a tax ‘representative’ [antiprosopos in Greek] or ‘agent’ [ekprosopos in Greek]) (is not required to or) does not keep records or compile information on transactions carried out by its principal, a taxable person established in another Member State, is jointly and severally liable for payment of VAT, but merely submits the corresponding VAT returns, where that national provision does not allow the tax authority or, by extension, the competent court to examine: (i) whether that person is involved in the economic activity of the taxable person, (ii) whether that person knew or should have known that the tax corresponding to that transaction or to a previous or subsequent transaction would go unpaid, and (iii) whether that person acted in good faith and did everything reasonably within its power?










2.


Under Article 204 of Directive 2006/112, can the tax representative of a taxable person subject to VAT established in another Member State be held liable as a debtor if the tax representative is not involved in the taxable person’s activity? Is that provision contrary to a national provision such as Article 35(1)(c) of Law 2859/2000, under which a tax representative is automatically considered to be liable, without the tax authority or, by extension, the competent court being empowered to examine whether that person is involved in the economic activity of the taxable person?










3.


Does the answer to the preceding questions differ depending on whether the transaction for which VAT is due is carried out under the tax identification number (tax number) of the Member State in which the taxable person is established or whether it is carried out under the tax number of the Member State in which the tax is due?










4.


Are Articles 204(1) and 205 of Directive 2006/112 to be interpreted as meaning that a person may be held liable under both provisions simultaneously, that is to say, as a debtor under Article 204(1) and as jointly and severally liable under Article 205?






(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/4181/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)