C 205/26
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
12.6.2023
(f) the provider, who is not yet registered in the other Member State, has the option to register for VAT purposes in that Member State in order to be able to issue the service recipient with an invoice bearing the relevant tax number in that Member State and showing the tax payable in said Member State, which would entitle the service recipient to an input VAT deduction in said Member State under the special procedure set out in Directive 2008/9/EC (2) of 12 February 2008? 2.
Does the answer to that question depend on whether the national tax administration has refunded the tax paid to the provider merely by virtue of the corrected invoice, even though the provider did not repay anything to the service recipient following the opening of insolvency proceedings?
(1) (2)
Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).
Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State (OJ 2008 L 44, p. 23).
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie (Poland) lodged on 21 February 2023 — Rada nadzorcza Getin Noble Bank and Others v Bankowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny (Case C-118/23, Getin Holding and Others) (2023/C 205/29) Language of the case: Polish Referring court Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Warszawie
Parties to the main proceedings Applicants: Rada nadzorcza Getin Noble Bank and Others Defendant: Bankowy Fundusz Gwarancyjny
Questions referred 1.
Is Article 85(2) and (3) of Directive 2014/59/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms and amending Council Directive 82/891/EEC, and Directives 2001/24/EC, 2002/47/EC, 2004/25/EC, 2005/56/EC, 2007/36/EC, 2011/35/EU, 2012/30/EU and 2013/36/EU, and Regulations (EU) No 1093/2010 and (EU) No 648/2012, (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2014 L 173, p. 190, as amended), in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 1), and the second paragraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union (Dz. U. of 2004, No 90, item 864/30, as amended), to be interpreted as meaning that, when the supervisory board of an entity undergoing restructuring brings an action before a national administrative court against a decision concerning compulsory restructuring, an effective legal remedy is deemed to be available also to persons who, in bringing an action against that decision, seek protection of their legal interest, where the court, in reviewing the contested decision, is not bound by the pleas in law and conclusions of the action or the legal basis relied on, a final judgment, given as a result of hearing that action, is effective erga omnes, and the possibility for those persons obtaining protection of their legal interest is not conditional on them bringing a separate action before an administrative court against that decision? 2.
Is Article 85(3) of Directive 2014/59/EU, which requires effective judicial review, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and the second subparagraph of Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union, which provide for effective legal protection, to be interpreted as precluding the application of a procedural rule of a Member State which requires a national administrative court to hear jointly all actions brought before it against a decision of a resolution authority where the application of that rule, together with other national procedural requirements relating to administrative courts, makes it excessively difficult, if not impossible, to give judgment in the case within a reasonable period, in view of the large number of such actions?