In one of numerous cases that take place in our legal order, The warden of one Tax Office issued a decision on the security on the Company's assets.
The subject of the security is the approximate amount of the tax liability in VAT, the approximate amount of interest on the delay on that tax liability and the approximate amount of the additional tax liability for each month.
The entrepreneur appealed the decision, but the second instance body did not divide the company’s arguments and issued a decision in which it maintained the decision of the first instance authority.
On the basis of this decision, the bank account claims (liability under the bank account agreement) of the companies were secured. Equally important, the security of the claim was also made for all the funds due in respect of works, supplies of goods and services and other claims on counterparties and the movable assets of the company.
Next, The company submitted a request to the Chief of the Tax Office for consent to the payment of funds for the purposes of securing the bank account for the purposes of the payment by the company attached to the above-mentioned application of the obligations necessary for the performance of business activities (postage services, courier services, transport services; organisation of forwarding services; organisation of services provided in the area of seaports; CARGO insurance, sea freight, port charge; documentation fees; IT service; payment for goods from foreign and Polish counterparties, remuneration of employees.
The body carried out the procedure, in which the decision to refuse the payment of the company's bank account was refused. The explanatory memorandum states that this proposal is not worthy of being taken into account.
It was pointed out that the overriding objective of the safeguard procedure is to secure the execution of a future monetary obligation to the Treasury, where there is a concern of its failure
The company, in disagreement with the decision of the authority, brought an action before the Provincial Administrative Court, acting on the basis of Article 3(2)(2) Act dated 30 August 2002 Law on proceedings before administrative courts (Journal of Laws of 2023, item 1634; (hereinafter PPSA) in relation to Article 64(1)(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2 April 1997 (Journal of Laws of 1997, item 483; Further Constitution of the Republic of Poland) in connection with Article 84 the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and Article 217 Constitution of the Republic of Poland, as well as Article 1 Protocol No 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Journal of Laws of 1995, item 175 as amended; (hereinafter P1EKPC) in relation to Article 17 Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2007/C 303/01; OJ EU Office of 14 December 2007 C No 303, p. 1; hereafter KPP/Cart) in relation to Article 13 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Journal of Laws of 1993, item 284 as amended; hereinafter the ECHR/ Convention) and Article 26 and Article 27 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties drawn up on 23 May 1969 (Journal of Laws of 1990, item 439; Further to the law of the Treaties), she challenged the order in its entirety.
She alleged a violation. Article 166a(2) UPEA in relation to Article 107(1)(6) Act dated 14 June 1960 Code of Administrative Procedure (Journal of Laws of 2022, item 2000 as amended; (hereinafter KPA) in relation to Article 126 KPA in relation to Article 18 UPEA by refusing to accept the payment of funds from a secured bank account, which was justified by the Authority on grounds not applicable in the case
In its reply to the complaint, the Authority indicated that the role of the safety authority is slightly broader. First, the enforcement authority is guided by the overarching purpose of the proceedings, namely to safeguard the interests of the public creditor.
When examining a request for consent to the payment of funds from a secure bank account, the enforcement authority must therefore also take into account other circumstances, consisting of the entire security procedure, such as: the value of the assets secured so far, the reliability of the entity in the context of e.g.
the disposal of assets. It should be assumed that the submission of documents demonstrating the need for expenditure is a necessary element for the examination of the application, but this does not give the ‘automatic’ authority's agreement to make payments from the bank account occupied.
In recognition of such a request, the enforcement authority is also obliged to assess other circumstances and events in the course of the safeguard procedure, taking into account in particular the need to safeguard the fulfilment of the future monetary obligation.
one the problems dealt with by the WSA were whether the company was entitled to lodge a complaint against the order issued. Following the examination of the case, the administrative court divided the applicant company’s argument and made the following statement: “In cases falling within the scope of the EU’s application, the order issued under the procedure Article 166a(2) Act dated 17 June 1966 on enforcement in administration (Journal of Laws of 2022, item 479) is entitled to bring an action before an administrative court on the basis of Article 3(2)(2) Act dated 30 August 2002 Law on proceedings before administrative courts (Journal of Laws of 2023, item 1634) based on constitutional, EU and international law standards."
Judgment is invalid (I SA/Wr 198/23 - The judgment of the WSA in Wrocław), but the fact of its issue and the argument there may be helpful in protecting the rights of entrepreneurs.