Skip to content
Representative cases in front of the EUCJ
- D&B assisted the Steaua Română Refinery in Case C-431/12 before the ECJ.
The decision rendered in this case is a landmark one, as it is the first of its kind in which the EUCJ recognized taxpayers’ right to obtain interest from the state for delayed VAT refunds, leading to a change in national law in this regard.
- D&B assisted BCR Leasing in Case C-438/13 in front of EUCJ.
The European court confirmed the interpretation provided by D&B David şi Baias lawyers, holding that leasing companies that are unable to recover goods subject to a financial leasing contract from users after its termination due to the user’s fault cannot be obliged to collect VAT or issue invoices in their own name for these goods because such a situation cannot be considered a supply of goods (to oneself) made for consideration within the meaning of the VAT Directive.
- D&B assisted Orange Romania in Case C-61/19 in front of EUCJ.
The decision pronounced in this case is instructive for the analysis of the validity of consent expressed by consumers regarding contracts concluded with data operators in the telecommunications sector. The Court established that, as a rule, consumers are in a position of inferiority compared to operators, given the contractual clauses typically used, which are pre-established and capable of misleading the consumer, obliging them to provide consent for the processing and storage of personal data.
- D&B assisted Grup Servicii Petroliere in Case C-291/18 in front of EUCJ.
In this case, EUCJ determined that the VAT exemption applicable to ships used for navigation on the high seas does not apply to the delivery of floating structures, such as self-elevating offshore drilling platforms primarily used in a fixed position to exploit hydrocarbon deposits in the sea.
- D&B assisted Petrotel Lukoil in Case C-68/18 in front of EUCJ.
In this case, the CJEU has ruled that national practices that impose taxes on energy products consumed within the thermal power plant of the institution where they were produced are not in conformity with Union law, to the extent that such consumption aims to produce energy products through the generation of thermal energy required for the manufacturing process of the mentioned products.
- D&B assisted Quadrant Amroq Beverages SRL in Case C-332/21 in front of EUCJ.
The preliminary referral was generated by a series of tax disputes concerning the refund of excise duties paid by the company. The European legal issue was highly complex and innovative because the intra-community deliveries within the company’s supply chain highlighted that several member states interpreted European law in diametrically opposite ways, even regarding the exemption aspect. However, the CJEU validated the arguments put forth by D&B’s lawyers and decided in favor of applying the exemption.
- D&B assisted Banca A in Case C-827/21 in front of EUCJ.
The EUCJ was called upon to determine whether national courts must interpret in accordance with European provisions concerning cross-border mergers, which regulate the non-taxation of income resulting from the cancellation of the beneficiary company’s participation in the capital of the transferring company, and in the case of national mergers, to the extent that the national legislator intended to establish the same tax treatment for domestic operations as well as for cross-border operations.
- D&B assisted Uniqa in supporting the defence alongside the legal team that provided representation in case C-267/21 before the EUCJ.
In the case, the EUCJ established that the claim settlement services provided by correspondent companies in on behalf of an insurance company are not part of the services provided by consultants, engineers, consulting offices, lawyers, accountants and other similar services, nor from data processing or from the provision of information and, as such, VAT was not due in Romania.
- D&B assisted Philips Orăştie in Case C-487/20 in front of EUCJ.
In this case, the EUCJ rendered a favourable solution, deciding that the VAT Directive as well as the equivalence principle shall be interpreted as precluding a national legislation that provides procedural rules for actions related to VAT refund based on an infringement of the common system of VAT, which are less favourable than the ones applicable to similar actions based on an infringement of national law regarding taxes other than VAT.
- D&B is assisting Greentech in front of EUCJ.
In this case, the EUCJ was requested to establish from the perspective of the VAT Directive, whether the tax authorities of the member states can proceed to deny the right to deduct VAT under the conditions in which the VAT has been paid and collected to the state budget, and according to the legislation its return is impossible.
- D&B collaborated in supporting the defence, assisting Cabot Plastics alongside another team of lawyers from PwC Belgium, who represented Cabot Plastics in Case C-232/22 before theEUCJ.
In this case, the EUCJ brought a series of extremely important clarifications regarding the controversial issue of fixed establishments for VAT, addressing for the first time the issue of processing services on an exclusive contract basis.
- D&B is assisting Weatherford in Case C-527/23 in front of EUCJ.
In this case, the EUCJ was requested to establish from the perspective of the VAT Directive, the right to deduct VAT for administration and management services provided within a group.
- D&B represented an energy company in a dispute which resulted in a 23% reduction in the fine imposed by the Competition Council, which was one of the largest fines imposed on such companies by the Council Competition in its history.
- D&B assisted a company producing construction materials in obtaining a final and irrevocable annulment of a Competition Council’s decision which imposed a total of approximately EUR 30 million in fines for allegedly participating in a 4-year price-fixing cartel on the Romanian cement market.
- D&B assisted an important provider of hydropower equipment services in front of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, obtaining the annulment of a VAT tax decision amounting over 48 million RON as well as the refund of the amount paid.
- D&B assisted a company in the oil industry in a dispute after it obtained a 6-million-euro reduction of a fine imposed by the Competition Council for an alleged cartel whose object is the withdrawal of a type of gasoline from the market.
- D&B successfully assisted and represented an oil and gas company in a case obtaining a significant reduction of a fine applied by the Competition Council from EUR 116 mil to EUR 21 mil.
- D&B assisted a company in a dispute obtaining the annulment of the tax decision by which the Tax authorities established an amount of RON 24 million consisting of additionally assessed VAT and related liabilities.
- D&B assisted a company in a lawsuit, successfully obtaining the annulment of a tax assessment decision in which the tax authorities denied the right to deduct VAT of approximately RON 10 million.
- D&B successfully represented a municipality in recognizing the right to a VAT refund of 3 million Euros for investments in local infrastructure, such as heating and sewage systems, operated by controlled companies rather than directly by the municipality.
- D&B provided assistance and successful representation to a supplier in the automotive industry in front of the courts, which resulted in a favourable decision to cancel a transfer pricing adjustment, leading to an assessment of 8.3 million Euros in corporate income tax, interest, and associated late payment penalties, audit services, and non-resident income tax.
- D&B successfully assisted a company in obtaining several favourable final decisions that compelled the tax authorities to grant the company a sum of several tens of millions of Euros, representing social contributions paid and not owed to the state budget.
- D&B successfully assisted a construction company in cancelling a tax assessment decision issued by the Romanian National Agency for Fiscal Administration (ANAF) for over 23 million Euros, following the illegal reclassification of daily allowances paid during a transnational secondment within the EU as salary income.