Supreme Administrative Court: The enforceability warrant must be served on the taxpayer’s legal representative

The resolution of the Supreme Administrative Court (NSA) of 16 June 2025 (case no. III FPS 1/25) settles a dispute regarding the delivery of an enforceability warrant issued under Article 155b § 1 of the Act on Enforcement Proceedings in Administration. The NSA held that such a warrant must be served on the authorized representative appointed by the taxpayer in the tax proceedings.

This is yet another resolution in which the NSA acknowledges that a power of attorney granted in the main tax proceedings remains effective in proceedings that are formally separate but substantively connected. Previous resolutions addressed, for example, the service of notices regarding the suspension of the limitation period (case no. I FPS 3/18), and the imposition of immediate enforceability on a tax decision (case no. I FPS 4/21).

Legal background

Although the Tax Ordinance Act and the Act on Enforcement Proceedings in Administration are separate statutes, they form a coherent and interconnected framework governing the securing of tax claims.

Under this framework:

• A security decision is issued by the tax authority under the Tax Ordinance Act where there is a justified concern that the tax obligation may not be satisfied;
• To enforce this decision in practice, the tax authority issues an enforceability warrant pursuant to the Act on Enforcement Proceedings in Administration.

Diverging jurisprudence on service of enforceability warrants

Until the adoption of the above resolution, administrative courts followed two conflicting lines of jurisprudence concerning the proper addressee of an enforceability warrant:

• Under the first approach, proceedings to secure tax claims were considered fully autonomous. Consequently, an enforceability warrant had to be served directly on the taxpayer, unless a separate power of attorney was granted specifically for that stage;
• Under the second approach, security proceedings were seen as a continuation of the main tax proceedings. In this view, the power of attorney granted earlier in the tax proceedings also applied to the security stage, and the enforceability warrant should be served on the same legal representative.

These inconsistencies gave rise to a fundamental procedural question: Should the enforceability warrant be served on the taxpayer or their legal representative?

Resolution clarifying judicial practice

In its resolution, the NSA expressly stated that the enforceability warrant issued to implement a tax security decision does not initiate a new proceeding but constitutes a continuation of the main tax assessment process. Therefore, where a power of attorney was granted in the main proceeding, it remains effective for the purpose of serving the enforceability warrant.

Practical implications

This resolution is of particular importance not only for the proper service of enforceability warrants, but also for the effectiveness of actions taken to secure tax claims.

Where such warrants are served directly on the taxpayer in disregard of an appointed legal representative, there is a risk that the service may be found ineffective, potentially invalidating the entire enforcement process.