Make a Submission
Vol. 44 (2024)
General Articles

Effectiveness and Constitutional Standards as a Barrier to the Correct Implementation of the European General Anti-abuse Rule

PDF
  • Edgar Drozdowski
Edgar Drozdowski
Adam Mickiewicz University

Published 2025-11-14

Keywords

  • general anti-abuse rule,
  • GAAR,
  • constitutional standards,
  • ATA Directive,
  • CJEU case law,
  • incorrect implementation,
  • effectiveness
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Effectiveness and Constitutional Standards as a Barrier to the Correct Implementation of the European General Anti-abuse Rule. (2025). Polish Yearbook of International Law, 44, 347-371. https://doi.org/10.24425/PYIL.2025.156725

Abstract

A key element in the fight against tax avoidance within the European 
Union has been the obligation for all Member States to introduce a harmonised gen
eral anti-abuse rule (GAAR). This article explores the interplay between the Polish 
constitutional standards regarding the GAAR, the need to ensure its effectiveness 
and EU standards derived from Art. 6 of the ATA Directive and the case law of the 
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The analysis concludes that, while 
the subjective test was implemented correctly, Poland failed to properly implement 
Art. 6 of the ATA Directive in relation to the genuine activity test and the objective test. 
The Constitutional Tribunal established a very high standard for the protection of 
taxpayers’ rights, which hinders the proper implementation of the GAAR and conflicts 
with the case law of the CJEU and the provisions of the ATA Directive.
 Keywords: general anti-abuse rule, GAAR, constitutional standards, ATA Directive, 
CJEU case law, incorrect implementation, effectiveness.

PDF

References

  1. Act of 23 April 1964 – Civil Code [2024] JoL 1061.
  2. Act of 29 August 1997 – Tax Ordinance [2021] JoL 2021, 1540.
  3. Baerentzen S., Danish Cases on the Use of Holding Companies for Cross-Border Dividends and Interest – A New Test to Disentangle Abuse from Real Economic Activity?, 12(1) World Tax Journal 3 (2020), pp. 3–52.
  4. Báez A., A PAN-European GAAR? Some (Un)Expected Consequences of the Proposed EU Tax Avoidance Directive Combined with the Dzodzi Line of Cases, 2 British Tax Review 143 (2016), pp. 143–151.
  5. Báez Moreno A., GAARs and Treaties: From the Guiding Principle to the Principal Purpose Test – What Have We Gained from BEPS Action 6?, 45(6) Intertax 432 (2017), pp. 432–446.
  6. Ballancin A., Cannas F., The Development of the Doctrine of Abuse of Law and the Danish Cases: Time to Shift the Focus from Non-Genuine Arrangements to Single (Abusive) Transactions?, 30(2) EC Tax Review 70 (2021), pp. 70–80.
  7. Bąkowska K., Gniazdowski M., Lachowicz M., Horyzont optymalizacji – geneza, skala i struktura luki w podatku CIT [The Horizon of Optimization – The Genesis, Scale and Structure of the CIT Gap], Polski Instytut Ekonomiczny, Warszawa: 2019.
  8. Beckers D., Broe L. De, The General Anti-Abuse Rule of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive: An Analysis Against the Wider Perspective of the European Court of Justice’s Case Law on Abuse of EU Law, 26(3) EC Tax Review 133 (2017), pp. 133–144.
  9. Birk D., Das Leistungsfähigkeitsprinzip als Maßstab der Steuernormen. Ein Beitrag zu den Grundfragen des Verhältnisses Steuerrecht und Verfassungsrecht, Deubner, Köln: 1983.
  10. Broe L. De, Gommers S., Danish Dynamite: The 26 February 2019 CJEU Judgments in the Danish Benefcial Ownership Cases, 28(6) EC Tax Review 270 (2019), pp. 270–299.
  11. Brolik J., Wykładnia prawa podatkowego oraz jej determinanty [Interpretation of Tax Law and its Determinants], 3 Zeszyty Naukowe Sądownictwa Administracyjnego 54 (2014), pp. 54–75.
  12. Brzeziński B., Kalinowski M., Olesińska A. (eds.), Ordynacja podatkowa. Komentarz praktyczny [Tax Ordinance: A Practical Commentary], Ośrodek Doradztwa i Doskonalenia Kadr, Gdańsk: 2017.
  13. Butler G., Sørensen K.E., The Prohibition of Abuse of EU Law: A Special General Principle, in: K.S. Ziegler, P.J. Neuvonen, V. Moreno-Lax (eds.), Research Handbook on General Principles in EU Law: Constructing Legal Orders in Europe, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham: 2022, pp. 402–422.
  14. Byers M., Abuse of Rights: An Old Principle, A New Age, 47(2) McGill Law Journal 389 (2002), pp. 389–431.
  15. Case 255/02 Halifax and Others v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise, EU:C:2006:121.
  16. Case C-8/81 Ursula Becker v. Finanzamt Münster-Innenstadt, EU:C:1982:7.
  17. Case C-110/99 Emsland-Stärke GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas, EU:C:2000:695.
  18. Case C-135/17 X-GmbH v. Finanzamt Stuttgart – Körperschaften, EU:C:2019:136.
  19. Case C-138/07 Belgische Staat v. N.V. Cobelfret, EU:C:2009:716.
  20. Case C-148/78 Criminal proceedings against Tullio Ratti, EU:C:1979:110.
  21. Case C-168/95 Criminal proceedings against Luciano Arcaro, EU:C:1996:363.
  22. Case C-196/04 Cadbury Schweppes plc and Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue, EU:C:2006:544.
  23. Case C-26/62 NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v. Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration, EU:C:1963:1.
  24. Case C-264/96 Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI) v. Kenneth Hall Colmer (Her Majesty’s Inspector of Taxes), EU:C:1998:370.
  25. Case C-321/05 Hans Markus Kofoed v. Skatteministeriet, EU:C:2007:408.
  26. Case C-33/74 Johannes Henricus Maria van Binsbergen v. Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid, EU:C:1974:131.
  27. Case C-417/10 Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze and Agenzia delle Entrate v. 3M Italia SpA, EU:C:2012:184.
  28. Case C-425/12 Portgás – Sociedade de Produção e Distribuição de Gás SA v. Ministério da Agricultura, do Mar, do Ambiente e do Ordenamento do Território, EU:C:2013:829.
  29. Case C-484/19 Lexel AB v. Skatteverket, EU:C:2021:34.
  30. Case C-585/22 X BV v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën, EU:C:2024:238.
  31. Case C-6/64 Costa v. ENEL, EU:C:1964:66.
  32. Case C-62/00 Marks & Spencer plc v. Commissioners of Customs & Excise, EU:C:2002:435.
  33. Case C-80/86 Criminal proceedings against Kolpinghuis Nijmegen BV, EU:C:1987:431.
  34. Commission Recommendation of 6 December 2012 on aggressive tax planning [2012] OJ L 338/41.
  35. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee of the 27 January 2012, Trade, growth and developmentTailoring trade and investment policy for those countries most in need, COM(2012)22 final.
  36. Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2 April 1997 [1997] JoL 78, 483.
  37. Council Directive 2009/133/EC of 19 October 2009 on the common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, partial divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States and to the transfer of the registered ofce of an SE or SCE between Member States [2009] OJ L 310/34.
  38. Dafnomilis V., Overview of the Implementation of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive into Member States’ Domestic Tax Laws, PwC, Rotterdam: 2020.
  39. DG TAXUD, Note on the Application of the “Minimum Level of Protection”, 18 March 2016.
  40. Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty payments made between associated companies of different Member States [2003] OJ L 157.
  41. Directive 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market [2016] OJ L 193.
  42. Dourado A.P., Aggressive Tax Planning in EU Law and in the Light of BEPS: The EC Recommendation on Aggressive Tax Planning and BEPS Actions 2 and 6, 43(1) Intertax 42 (2015), pp. 42–57.
  43. Dover R., Ferrett B., Gravino D., Jones E., Merler S., Bringing Transparency, Coordination and Convergence to Corporate Tax Policies in the European Union. Part I: Assessment of the Magnitude of Aggressive Corporate Tax Planning, European Parliamentary Research Service, Brussel: 2015.
  44. Drozdowski E., Hydra lernejska, czyli o braku możliwości pogodzenia wyroku Trybunału Konstytucyjnego z instytucją klauzuli przeciwko unikaniu opodatkowania [The Lernaean Hydra. On the Impossibility of Accommodating the Constitutional Tribunal’s Judgment and the General Anti-avoidance Rule], 82(4) Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 187 (2020), pp. 187–201.
  45. Englisch J., The Danish Tax Avoidance Cases: New Milestones in the Court’s Anti-Abuse Doctrine, 57(2) Common Market Law Review 503 (2020), pp. 503–537.
  46. Feria R. de la, EU General Anti-(Tax) Avoidance Mechanisms, in: G. Loutzenhiser, R. de la Feria (eds.), The Dynamics of Taxation: Essays in Honour of Judith Freedman, Hart Publishing, Oxford: 2020, pp. 155–183.
  47. Feria R. de la, On Prohibition of Abuse of Law as a General Principle of EU Law, 29(4) EC Tax Review 142 (2020), pp. 142–146.
  48. Feria R. de la, Prohibition of Abuse of (Community) Law: The Creation of a General Principle of EC Law Through Tax, 45(2) Common Market Law Review 395 (2008), pp. 395–441.
  49. Filipczyk H., „Sprzeczność z przedmiotem lub celem ustawy podatkowej lub jej przepisu” jako klauzulowa przesłanka unikania opodatkowania [“Defeating the Object or Purpose of a Tax Act or its Provision” as a Determinant of Tax Avoidance under GAAR], 3 Przegląd Podatkowy 28 (2020), pp. 28–37.
  50. Freedman J., Defning Taxpayer Responsibility: In Support of a General Anti-Avoidance Principle, 4 British Tax Review 332 (2004), pp. 332–357.
  51. Freedman J., The UK General Anti-Avoidance Rule: Transplants and Lessons, 73(6–7) Bulletin for International Taxation 332 (2019), pp. 332–225.
  52. Gomułowicz A., Mączyński D., Podatki i prawo podatkowe [Taxes and Tax Law], Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa: 2016.
  53. Govind S., Lazarov I., Carpet-Bombing Tax Avoidance in Europe: Examining the Validity of the ATAD Under EU Law, 47(10) Intertax 852 (2019), pp. 852–868.
  54. Guzek M., Stefaniak M., Klauzula przeciwko unikaniu opodatkowania. Komentarz praktyczny [General Anti-avoidance Rule: A Practical Commentary], C.H. Beck, Warszawa: 2018.
  55. Guzek M., Stefaniak M., Klauzula przeciwko unikaniu opodatkowania [General Anti-avoidance Rule], 11 Monitor Podatkowy 22 (2016), pp. 22–27.
  56. Jimenez A.M., Towards a Homogeneous Theory of Abuse in EU (Direct) Tax Law, 66(4–5) Bulletin for International Taxation 270 (2012), pp. 270–292, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2392512 (accessed 30 June 2025).
  57. Joined Cases C-115/16, C-118/16, C-119/16 and C-299/16 N Luxembourg 1 and Others v. Skatteministeriet, EU:C:2019:134.
  58. Joined Cases C-116/16 and C-117/16 Skatteministeriet v. T Danmark and Y Denmark Aps, EU:C:2019:135.
  59. Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90 Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and others v. Italian Republic, EU:C:1991:4.
  60. Kemmeren E., Where is EU Law in the OECD BEPS Discussion?, 23(4) EC Tax Review 190 (2014), pp. 190–193.
  61. Kondej M., Sprzeczność korzyści z przedmiotem i celem przepisu ustawy podatkowej jako przesłanka stosowania klauzuli ogólnej przeciwko unikaniu opodatkowania [Tax Beneft Being Contrary to the Object and Purpose of the Applicable Provision of the Law as Prerequisite for Polish GAAR Application], 12 Polski Przegląd Nauk Społecznych 28 (2018), pp. 28–37.
  62. Korving J., Hulten L.C. van, Case Law Note: Svig og Misbrug: The Danish Anti-Abuse Cases, 47(8) Intertax 793 (2019), pp. 793–800.
  63. Kuźniacki B., Dekodowanie hipotezy GAAR: przesłanki intencji i sprzeczności oraz relacje między nimi, cz. 1 [Decoding the Hypothesis Underlying GAAR: Conditions of Intention and Unlawfulness and the Relationships Between Them, Part 1], 6 Przegląd Podatkowy 19 (2020), pp. 19–41.
  64. Kuźniacki B., Poland’s Implementation of EU GAAR Compromises Constitutional and EU Principles, 49(3) Intertax 237 (2021), pp. 237–253.
  65. Kuźniacki B., The GAAR (Article 6 ATAD), in: W. Haslehner, K. Pantazatou, G. Kofler, A. Rust (eds.), A Guide to the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham: 2020, pp. 127–173.
  66. Ladziński A., Zmiany w ogólnej klauzuli przeciwko unikaniu opodatkowania – powrót do przeszłości [Changes in the General Anti-avoidance Rule: Back to the Past], 1 Przegląd Podatkowy 22 (2019), pp. 22–28.
  67. Leczykiewicz D., Prohibition of Abusive Practices as a “General Principle” of EU Law, 56(3) Common Market Law Review 703 (2019), pp. 703–742.
  68. Lenaerts A., The General Principle of the Prohibition of Abuse of Rights: A Critical Position on Its Role in a Codifed European Contract Law, 18(6) European Review of Private Law 1121 (2010), pp. 1121–1154.
  69. Mastalski R., Miejsce wykładni językowej w procesie stosowania prawa podatkowego [The Role of Literal Interpretation in the Application of Tax Law], 8 Przegląd Podatkowy 7 (2007), pp. 7–12.
  70. Mączyński D., Wpływ orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego na trwałość instytucji materialnego prawa podatkowego [Influence of the Constitutional Tribunal’s Decisions in Tax Matters on the Stability of Institutions of Substantive Tax Law], 76(3) Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny 23 (2014), pp. 23–35.
  71. Olesińska A., Is Polish GAAR Compatible with the Directive 2016/1164 (ATAD)?, Toruński Rocznik Podatkowy 104 (2017), pp. 104–119.
  72. Opinion of Advocate General Darmon to Case C-231/89 Krystyna Gmurzynska-Bscher v. Oberfnanzdirektion Köln, EU:C:1990:276.
  73. Opinion of Advocate General Darmon to Joined Cases C-297/88 and C-197/89 M. Dzodzi v. Belgium, EU:C:1990:274.
  74. Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs to C-130/95 Bernd Giloy v. Hauptzollamt Frankfurt am Main-Ost, EU:C:1996:332.
  75. Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs to Case C-306/99 Banque Internationale pour l’Afrique Occidentale SA (BIAO) v. Finanzamt mr GroBunternehmen in Hamburg, EU:C:2001:608.
  76. Opinion of Advocate General Mancini to Case C-166/84 Thomasdünger GmbH v. Oberfnanzdirektion Frankfurt am Main, EU:C:1985:208.
  77. Opinion of Advocate General Tesauro to Case C-346/93 Kleinwort Benson Ltd. v. City of Glasgow District Council, EU:C:1995:85.
  78. Piekarz R., Miarkowski A., Znikające miliardy. Jak transfer dochodów za granicę drenuje polski budżet. Raport [Disappearing Billions: How Income Shifting Abroad Drains the Polish Budget. A Report], Centrum Analiz Klubu Jagiellońskiego, Warszawa: 2015.
  79. Polish Constitutional Tribunal, judgment of 11 May 2004, K 4/03.
  80. Polish Constitutional Tribunal, judgment of the 17 October 2000, SK 5/99.
  81. Prejs E., Nadużycie prawa podmiotowego w prawie podatkowym [Abuse of Subjective Rights in Tax Law], 20 Przegląd Podatkowy 29 (2006), pp. 29–40.
  82. Proposal for a Council Directive of 28 January 2016, laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market, COM(2016) 26 final.
  83. Radzikowski K., Obejście prawa podatkowego w najnowszym orzecznictwie sądów administracyjnych [Tax Law Evasion in Recent Judgments of Administrative Courts], 6 Przegląd Podatkowy 10 (2010), pp. 10–25.
  84. Rosenblatt P., General Anti-Avoidance Rules for Major Developing Countries, Wolters Kluwer, Deventer: 2015.
  85. Schön W., The Concept of Abuse of Law in European Taxation: A Methodological and Constitutional Perspective, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance, Munich: 2019, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3490489 (accessed 30 June 2025).
  86. Seiler M., GAARs and Judicial Anti-Avoidance in Germany, the UK and the EU, Linde Verlag, Wien: 2016.
  87. Statute of the International Court of Justice (adopted on 26 June 1945, entered into force on 24 October 1945), 33 UNTS 993.
  88. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (signed on 23 May 1969, entered into force on 27 January 1980), 1155 UNTS 331.
  89. Weber D., The Reasonableness Test of the Principal Purpose Test Rule in OECD BEPS Action 6 versus the EU Principle of Legal Certainty and the EU Abuse of Law, 10(1) Erasmus Law Review 48 (2017), pp. 48–59.
  90. Zalasiński A., The ECJ’s Decisions in the Danish “Benefcial Ownership” Cases: Impact on the Reaction to Tax Avoidance in the European Union, 2(4) International Tax Studies 1 (2019), pp. 1–26.

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.