C 165/18
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
19.4.2022
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 February 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie — Romania) — SC Cridar Cons SRL v Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Cluj, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Cluj-Napoca (Case C-582/20) (1) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 167 and 168 — Right to deduction — Refusal — Tax evasion — Evaluation of evidence — Suspension of examination of an administrative complaint relating to a notice of assessment refusing a right to deduction, pending the outcome of criminal proceedings — Procedural autonomy of the Member States — Principle of fiscal neutrality — Right to good administration — Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) (2022/C 165/20) Language of the case: Romanian Referring court Înalta Curte de Casaţie şi Justiţie
Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: SC Cridar Cons SRL
Defendants: Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Cluj, Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Cluj-Napoca
Operative part of the judgment Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which permits national tax authorities to suspend the examination of an administrative complaint against a notice of assessment refusing a taxable person the right to deduct input VAT on account of the involvement of that taxable person in tax evasion, with a view to securing additional objective evidence concerning that involvement, provided that, first, such suspension does not delay the outcome of that administrative complaint procedure beyond a reasonable time, second, that the decision ordering that suspension includes reasons both in law and in fact and may be subject to judicial review and, third, that, if it ultimately transpires that the right to deduction was refused in breach of EU law, that taxable person may secure the repayment of the corresponding amount within a reasonable time as well as, where relevant, the corresponding late payment interest.
In those circumstances, it is not necessary that, during that suspension, that taxable person enjoy a suspension of enforcement of that notice, except, in case of serious doubt as to the lawfulness of that notice, if granting the suspension of enforcement of the same notice is required to avoid serious and irreparable harm to the interests of the taxable person.
(1)
OJ C 53, 15.2.2021.