On 16 June 2025, the Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) issued a resolution (ref. III FPS 1/25) that resolved an ongoing dispute regarding the service of security orders in administrative enforcement proceedings. According to the position presented in the resolution, a security order should be served on the attorney appointed and reported by the taxpayer in the tax proceedings (i.e. tax audit or customs and fiscal audit).
The case in question concerned a security measure imposed on a taxpayer’s assets due to concerns over potential non-payment of a tax liability, pursuant to Article 33 §1 of the Tax Ordinance. Under §2 of the same provision, such a measure may also be imposed during the course of a tax proceeding, tax audit or customs and fiscal audit before a final decision is issued. When executing the security measure, the enforcement authority is required – under Article 155b §1 of the Act on Enforcement Proceedings in Administration – to serve a copy of the security order.
There had been divergent rulings on the proper addressee of this document. Until now, it was unclear whether, in cases where the taxpayer had appointed and reported an attorney for the tax proceedings, the security order should be served on the attorney or directly on the taxpayer. In several judgments (e.g., NSA judgment of 25 February 2025, ref. III FSK 1231/24, and of 15 November 2024, ref. III FSK 1559/23), the court dismissed taxpayers’ complaints, ruling that the authorities had acted correctly by serving the orders directly on the taxpayers rather than on their attorneys. Conversely, in the judgment of 16 July 2024 (ref. II FSK 386/24), the NSA dismissed the complaint filed by the Director of the National Tax Information (KIS), finding that service should be made to the company’s attorney, and held that the attorney also represents the taxpayer in the enforcement-related security proceedings.
In view of these inconsistencies, the President of the NSA referred a legal question to an extended panel of the Court, asking whether service of a security order under Article 155b §1 of the Act on Enforcement Proceedings in Administration should be made directly to the taxpayer or to the attorney appointed and reported in the tax proceedings. The National Prosecutor’s Office also expressed its view, siding with the line of jurisprudence that held such orders should be served directly on the taxpayer.
However, in its resolution, the NSA held that an attorney appointed and reported by a taxpayer in the course of tax proceedings (tax audit or customs and fiscal audit) shall also act as the attorney in the enforcement proceedings in which the security order is issued. According to the NSA, such enforcement proceedings are undoubtedly connected to the principal tax proceedings, and it would be illogical to serve a security decision on the attorney while serving the security order itself directly on the taxpayer. Such practice would contradict the very purpose of appointing an attorney – namely, to relieve the taxpayer from the obligation to actively participate in the proceedings.