Published on 22 June 2026
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 40689/22
AGRIPLANET OOD
against Bulgaria
lodged on 11 August 2022
communicated on 3 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns procedural guarantees in tax proceedings.
The applicant company, a vegetable producer, states that in 2015 it purchased agricultural chemicals from company I. The chemicals were delivered and used, and the applicant received a State subsidy covering the purchase price. After reporting the transaction, the company also benefited from a value-added tax (“VAT”) credit.
However, in early 2016 company I. cancelled the invoices it had issued to the applicant. It informed the tax authorities that no actual supplies had taken place and requested a refund of the VAT it had already paid. The tax authorities rejected the request, finding no grounds to cancel the invoices. Company I. sought judicial review, and on 28 November 2018 the Supreme Administrative Court (“the SAC”) quashed the tax authorities’ decision. The SAC found it proven that company I. had not supplied agricultural chemicals to the applicant company, and that the payments made were merely advance payments. It further found, based on the evidence in that case, that the supplies had not occurred because the competent State body had refused to grant the applicant company a subsidy.
Following that judgment, in 2020 the tax authorities revoked the applicant company’s previously recognised VAT credit and ordered it to repay approximately 270,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN), equivalent to about 138,000 euros (EUR), plus about BGN 130,000 (EUR 67,000) in interest. Relying on the SAC’s earlier findings, the authorities concluded that the supplies declared by the applicant had not taken place.
The applicant company sought judicial review. It submitted evidence concerning the transport and delivery of the chemicals and argued that its own accounting records had never been examined in the proceedings against company I. Such an examination, it claimed, would have demonstrated that the supplies were real. The applicant also submitted evidence regarding the State subsidy and the utilisation of the chemicals. It pointed out that it had not been a party to the earlier proceedings and was therefore not bound by the judgment of 28 November 2018.
The first‑instance Plovdiv Administrative Court accepted the applicant’s arguments and annulled the tax authorities’ order. However, in a final judgment of 13 April 2022, the SAC reversed that decision. It held that it was required to follow its earlier finding that the supplies had not occurred, noting that although the parties in the earlier case were different, the proceedings concerned the same underlying supplies.
The applicant company complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, relying also on Article 13 of the Convention, that the SAC upheld the tax authorities’ order against it without examining the arguments it had raised, and by relying on findings made in proceedings in which the applicant had not participated.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was such interference in accordance with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In particular, was the interference accompanied by procedural guarantees affording the applicant company a reasonable opportunity of presenting its case for the purpose of effectively challenging the measures against it (see, for such requirements, AGOSI v. the United Kingdom, 24 October 1986, § 55, Series A no. 108; Microintelect OOD v. Bulgaria, no. 34129/03, § 44, 4 March 2014; B.K.M. Lojistik Tasimacilik Ticaret Limited Sirketi v. Slovenia, no. 42079/12, § 43, 17 January 2017; Project-Trade d.o.o. v. Croatia, no. 1920/14, § 82, 19 November 2020)?