Ch. Provata - Legal Remedies for Jointly Liable Persons Against Enforcement Measures in Tax Disputes

Legal insight

October 2025

Christina Provata, Trainee Lawyer

1. Introduction:
   Under the Public Revenue Collection Code (PRCC), in conjunction with the TPC provisions, the procedures for collection of public claims (i.e. administrative enforcement) are regulated. A valid enforceable title is a prerequisite for starting enforcement, as required by Article 2(4) PRCC, which incorporates and substantiates the monetary claim of the State.
   In tax disputes, Article 44 TPC enumerates the types of acts that qualify as enforceable (legal) titles, which the tax administration may use to initiate enforcement: these include various types of tax assessment acts (direct assessment, administrative assessment, estimated assessment, intermediate assessment, corrective assessment) and penalty assessment acts.
   Without the existence of a valid enforceable title, enforcement procedures cannot be validly initiated.

2. The Obligation to Notify the Enforceable Title as a Precondition for Its Finalization:
   However, issuance alone is not sufficient — the enforceable title must be finalized, and that requires proper, timely notification to the addressee (the person against whom the act is directed), as mandated by consistent jurisprudence of the Council of State (CoS). This notification gives the addressee the opportunity to challenge its validity via legal remedies.
   Under the TPC, the affected person may first file an administrative appeal (art. 72 TPC) before the Resolution of Disputes Directorate (RDD) within 30 days (60 for non-residents), and subsequently file a substantive court appeal (art. 63 et seq. Administrative Procedure Code) before the administrative courts against the RDD’s decision or its silent rejection, within 60 days (90 for non-residents).
   These remedies allow review of both the legality and the substantive merits of the title. Importantly, the timely and proper notification of the tax assessment act is essential, because failure may prevent the party from effectively contesting the enforceability of the title.

In the case of jointly liable persons, the fact that the tax assessment act was notified to the debtor company alone — or via a default notice (notice‑of‑arrears) under Article 47 TPC — does not relieve the administration from the obligation to issue a separate notification of the enforceable title to each jointly liable person. Execution against those third parties requires that they too be individually served the enforceable title.

Moreover, when a legal remedy (e.g. objection under art. 217 seq. of the Administrative Procedure Code) is available against the notice of arrears — which incorporates the cash certification of the debt — the taxpayer may challenge the legality of the enforceable title only if no other remedy exists that would allow equivalent judicial review. In such cases, the court review is achieved via a substantive appeal, making the earlier proper notification critical. Absent notification, the enforcement measures may be declared invalid through the appropriate legal challenge.

3. Joint Liability under Article 49 TPC:
   Article 49 of the new TPC (Law 5104/2024) provides that persons holding certain roles (e.g. CEO, manager) are jointly liable for specified taxes. The purpose is to ensure the State’s ability to collect claims from third parties.
   Under Article 49(4) TPC, those jointly liable persons have independent standing to pursue legal remedies or defenses equivalent to those of the legal entity itself, enjoying full legal protection against tax authority acts. The legal entity can also file administrative appeals (art. 72 TPC), substantive appeals, and objections under art. 217 Administrative Procedure Code if enforcement is initiated.

Despite these provisions, in practice tax authorities often limit themselves to issuing the notice of arrears to third parties and fail to notify the enforceable assessment act itself — effectively reducing the remedies available to jointly liable persons to only the objection under art. 217. This practice seems inconsistent with Article 49(4), which guarantees them the same legal protection as the taxpayer entity.

4. Legal Position of Jointly Liable Persons & Notification Obligation in CoS Jurisprudence:
   The practice of the tax authority conflicts with both the wording and purpose of Article 49(4) TPC. The CoS has clarified that:

• Jointly liable persons are indeed entitled to file administrative and substantive appeals against the primary tax assessment act, effectively equating them with the taxpayer entity (CoS 498/2020). Any contrary interpretation would render Article 49(4) empty in substance.

• The CoS, in decision 2734/2022, expressly held that the tax authority must notify jointly liable persons of the enforceable title (tax assessment or penalty act) before initiating enforcement against them, as they enjoy identical legal protection.

• Further, if an enforceable tax act fails to mention a jointly liable person as required under Article 38(1)(θ) TPC, the authority must issue a corrective assessment and properly notify that person to satisfy the obligation.

The consequence is that if the tax authority fails to notify the enforceable title to jointly liable third parties, the title is not finalized. Measures of enforce­ment against them become invalid — provided a challenge is properly raised (objection or substantive appeal). CoS jurisprudence (e.g. 3532/2023, 700/2023, 2502/2023, 858/2024) affirm that non-notification renders enforcement actions void if contested.

Whether or not the tax authority will strictly adhere to CoS doctrine in practice remains to be seen.