Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, sitting with five Judges)

22 April 2026 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Taxable amount – Reduction in case of cancellation, refusal, non-payment or reduction of the price – Article 90(1) of Directive 2006/112/EC – Acquisition by a subcontractor of a claim held by a contractor against the developer – Irrecoverable claim – Right of the subcontractor to benefit from the reduction in the taxable amount )

In Case T‑233/25,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Court of Appeal, Cluj, Romania), made by decision of 24 February 2025, received at the Court on 25 March 2025, in the proceedings

Mokoryte SRL

v

Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Cluj-Napoca,

Ministerul Finanţelor – Direcţia Generală de Soluţionare a Contestaţiilor,

Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Cluj,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, sitting with five Judges),

composed of N. Półtorak, President of the Chamber, G. Hesse, G. Steinfatt, D. Petrlík and I. Dimitrakopoulos (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: M. Brkan,

Registrar: V. Di Bucci,

having regard to the transmission of the request for a preliminary ruling to the General Court by the Court of Justice on 10 April 2025, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union,

having regard to the fact that the case concerns the area referred to in point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the fact that there is no independent question relating to interpretation within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 50b of that statute,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        the Romanian Government, by E. Gane, M. Chicu and L. Ghiță, acting as Agents,

–        the Hungarian Government, by R. Kissné Berta and M. Fehér, acting as Agents,

–        the European Commission, by P. Carlin and T. Isacu de Groot, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1; ‘the VAT Directive’).

2        The request has been made in proceedings between Mokoryte SRL, on the one hand, and the Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice Cluj-Napoca (Regional Directorate-General for Public Finance of Cluj-Napoca, Romania), the Ministerul Finanțelor – Direcția Generală de Soluționare a Contestațiilor (Ministry of Finance – Directorate-General for the Settlement of Disputes, Romania) and the Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice Cluj (District Directorate of Public Finances of Cluj, Romania), on the other, concerning the refusal to grant that company a reduction in the taxable amount for value added tax (VAT) and a refund of that tax following non-payment of a claim.

 Legal framework

 European Union law

3        Article 2(1) of the VAT Directive states:

‘The following transactions shall be subject to VAT:

…

(c)      the supply of services for consideration within the territory of a Member State by a taxable person acting as such;

…’

4        Article 9(1), first subparagraph, of the VAT Directive provides as follows:

‘“Taxable person” shall mean any person who, independently, carries out in any place any economic activity, whatever the purpose or results of that activity.’

5        Article 28 of the VAT Directive provides as follows:

‘Where a taxable person acting in his own name but on behalf of another person takes part in a supply of services, he shall be deemed to have received and supplied those services himself.’

6        Article 63 of the VAT Directive reads as follows:

‘The chargeable event shall occur and VAT shall become chargeable when the goods or the services are supplied.’

7        Article 73 of the VAT Directive provides as follows:

‘In respect of the supply of goods or services, other than as referred to in Articles 74 to 77, the taxable amount shall include everything which constitutes consideration obtained or to be obtained by the supplier, in return for the supply, from the customer or a third party, including subsidies directly linked to the price of the supply.’

8        Article 90 of the VAT Directive states:

‘1.      In the case of cancellation, refusal or total or partial non-payment, or where the price is reduced after the supply takes place, the taxable amount shall be reduced accordingly under conditions which shall be determined by the Member States.

2.      In the case of total or partial non-payment, Member States may derogate from paragraph 1.’

9        Article 185 of the VAT Directive reads as follows:

‘1.      Adjustment shall, in particular, be made where, after the VAT return is made, some change occurs in the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted, for example where purchases are cancelled or price reductions are obtained.

2.      By way of derogation from paragraph 1, no adjustment shall be made in the case of transactions remaining totally or partially unpaid or in the case of destruction, loss or theft of property duly proved or confirmed, or in the case of goods reserved for the purpose of making gifts of small value or of giving samples, as referred to in Article 16.

However, in the case of transactions remaining totally or partially unpaid or in the case of theft, Member States may require adjustment to be made.’

 Romanian law

10      Article 287 of Legea nr. 227/2015 privind Codul fiscal (Law No 227/2015 establishing the Tax Code) of 8 September 2015 (Monitorul Oficial al României, Part I, No 688, of 10 September 2015), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the Tax Code’), provides:

‘The taxable amount [of VAT] shall be reduced in the following cases:

…

(d)      where the consideration for the goods or services supplied cannot be collected following the declaration of insolvency of the beneficiary or the implementation of a reorganisation plan approved and confirmed by a judgment of the court amending or cancelling the creditor’s claim. The adjustment is permitted from the date of the court judgment confirming the reorganisation plan and, in the case of the insolvency of the beneficiary, from the date of the judgment or, as the case may be, of the reasoned order by which the insolvency decision was adopted, in accordance with insolvency law. The adjustment shall be made within five years from 1 January of the year following that of the judgment confirming the reorganisation plan or that in which the insolvency decision was taken by judgment or, as the case may be, by reasoned order. If the insolvency took place before 1 January 2019 and if the final and irrevocable judgment closing the statutory insolvency proceedings has not been delivered before that date, the adjustment shall be made within five years from 1 January 2019. …’

11      Point 32 of Hotărârea Guvernului nr. 1/2016 pentru aprobarea Normelor metodologice de aplicare a Legii nr. 227/2015 privind Codul fiscal (Government Decision No 1/2016 approving the methodological rules for the application of Law No 227/2015 establishing the Tax Code), of 6 January 2016 (Monitorul Oficial al României, Part I, No 22, of 13 January 2016), provides:

‘(1)      In the cases provided for in Article 287 of the Tax Code, suppliers of goods and service providers shall adjust the taxable amount after the supply, or after invoicing the supply even if the supply has not been effected, but the events referred to in Article 287 of the Tax Code then occur after invoicing and the entry of the [VAT] in the taxable person’s accounting records. To that end, suppliers/providers must issue invoices which will also be sent to the beneficiary, showing the amounts preceded by the minus sign where the taxable amount is reduced or, as the case may be, without that sign, if the taxable amount is increased. The provisions of this paragraph also apply to intra-Community supplies.

…’

12      Article 1.568 of Legea nr. 287/2009 privind Codul civil (Law No 287/2009 establishing the Romanian Civil Code), of 17 July 2009, in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (Monitorul Oficial al României, Part I, No 505, of 15 July 2011; ‘the Civil Code’), provides:

‘(1)      The assignment of a claim shall transfer to the assignee:

(a)      all the assignor’s rights in respect of the assigned claim;

(b)      the security rights and all other ancillary rights of the assigned claim.

…’

13      Article 1.851 of the Civil Code states:

‘(1)      Under the works contract, the contractor undertakes, at his or her own risk, to carry out a specific piece of work, whether material or intellectual, or to provide a specific service to the beneficiary, in return for a price.

(2)      The provisions of this section shall consequently also apply to the construction company if they are compatible with the special rules laid down for that contract.’

14      Article 1.852 of the Civil Code states:

(1)      By means of the subcontract, the contractor may entrust to one or more subcontractors the performance of parts or elements of the work or services, unless the works contract has been entered into in consideration of the contractor.

(2)      In relations with the beneficiary, the contractor is liable for the actions of the subcontractor in the same way as for his own actions.

(3)      Subcontracting is subject to the provisions laid down for the works contract.’

 The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred

15      On 9 February 2007, CBC Development Design SRL (‘the developer’) concluded a works contract with Modern Bau SRL (‘the contractor’) for a business centre project in Cluj-Napoca (Romania). The contractor entrusted the performance of construction works relating to that business centre to Mokoryte (‘the subcontractor’) under a sub-contract concluded on 7 November 2007.

16      By judgment of 10 December 2014, the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj (Specialised Court, Cluj, Romania) declared the developer insolvent. Following a request lodged on 22 December 2014, the contractor’s claim against the developer, arising from the works contract referred to in paragraph 15 above, was registered in the developer’s insolvency estate for an amount of 9 401 352.39 Romanian lei (RON) (approximately EUR 1 843 000).

17      Since the contractor did not itself pay its debt to the subcontractor, arising from the subcontract referred to in paragraph 15 above, the latter brought an action before the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj (Specialised Court, Cluj) on 29 December 2014 seeking an order requiring the contractor to pay it the sum of RON 1 970 819.76 (approximately EUR 386 000), including VAT, corresponding to the amount of invoices which it had issued pursuant to that contract. The subcontractor collected VAT on those invoices.

18      Pursuant to the judgment of 4 September 2015 delivered by the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj (Specialised Court, Cluj), following a mediation agreement of 24 July 2015, the contractor paid the subcontractor, in settlement of part of its debt, the amount of RON 270 819.76 (approximately EUR 53 000), including VAT. For the remainder of that debt, corresponding to RON 1 700 000 (approximately EUR 333 000), including VAT, the two companies concluded an assignment, authenticated on 24 July 2015, by which the subcontractor acquired the contractor’s claim against the developer.

19      Following that assignment of the claim, the final schedule of claims included in the developer’s insolvency estate was amended in order to include in it the subcontractor for an amount of RON 1 700 000, including VAT. By judgment of 28 April 2021, the Tribunalul Specializat Cluj (Specialised Court, Cluj) declared the closure of the developer’s insolvency proceedings and ordered that the developer be struck off the commercial register, without the developer having discharged the debt arising from the works contract concluded with the contractor.

20      On 9 December 2021, the subcontractor issued five cancellation invoices addressed to the developer in order to cancel five invoices sent in 2009 by the contractor to the developer for the performance of the works provided for in the works contract. Those cancellation invoices contained a reference to ‘Article 287(d)’, a provision of the Tax Code, relating to the adjustment of the taxable amount for VAT in the event, inter alia, of non-payment of the price of the goods or services supplied as a result of the beneficiary’s insolvency. The subcontractor, on the basis of that provision, reduced the collected VAT declared in its VAT return for the fourth quarter of 2021 by an amount of RON 265 358 (approximately EUR 52 000). Since that return showed a negative balance of VAT, it requested a refund of that balance.

21      The subcontractor was the subject of a tax inspection for the processing of its VAT return for the fourth quarter of 2021. The tax inspection authority considered that it could not benefit from the adjustment provided for in Article 287(d) of the Tax Code and that the reduction in the collected VAT, which it had made in that VAT return, was unjustified on the ground, in essence, that the beneficiary of its services was not the developer but the contractor and that only the latter could claim an adjustment following the insolvency of the developer.

22      By a tax assessment notice of 2 March 2022, the District Public Finance Administration of Cluj charged the subcontractor a total amount of RON 265 358 by way of VAT. Furthermore, the application for a VAT refund submitted by the subcontractor was rejected.

23      The subcontractor lodged a complaint against the tax assessment notice referred to in paragraph 22 above, which was rejected by a decision of 25 April 2023 issued by the Ministry of Finance – Directorate-General for the handling of complaints, which endorsed the position of the tax inspection authority. On 1 August 2023, the subcontractor brought an action before the Tribunalul Cluj (Regional Court, Cluj, Romania), seeking annulment of the decision of 25 April 2023 and the tax assessment notice of 2 March 2022.

24      That action having been dismissed by the Tribunalul Cluj (Regional Court, Cluj) on 14 June 2024, the subcontractor brought an appeal on a point of law before the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Court of Appeal, Cluj, Romania), which is the referring court.

25      The referring court observes that, at the time of issuing of the cancellation invoices addressed to the developer (see paragraph 20 above), the subcontractor could have been regarded as clearly unable to recover the claim which it had against the developer, and that the tax authorities did not find fraudulent intent when the contractor assigned that claim. That court is uncertain whether Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the adjustment of the taxable amount which it provides in the event of non-payment of a claim may be made only by the taxable person liable to pay VAT who supplied the goods or services which gave rise to that claim, or whether that adjustment may also be made by a third-party taxable person to whom the taxable person liable to pay VAT has assigned that claim. The referring court notes, in particular, that the restriction of the right to adjust the taxable amount for VAT purposes solely to the supplier of the goods or services appears to be consistent with the provisions of Article 73 of that directive, which defines that taxable amount as the consideration obtained or to be obtained by the supplier, but that it could run counter to the principle of VAT neutrality, which requires that the taxable person be entirely relieved of the burden of the tax due or paid in the course of his or her economic activities.

26      In these circumstances, the Curtea de Apel Cluj (Court of Appeal, Cluj) decided to stay proceedings and referred the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘In contractual relationships followed by subcontracting, in which there is an assignment of claims between the contractor and the subcontractor with the result that the subcontractor acquires a claim against the final beneficiary of the works, does Article 90 of [the VAT Directive] preclude the possibility of the taxable amount for VAT purposes being adjusted by the subcontractor assignee?’

 Consideration of the question referred

27      By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive must be interpreted as precluding a subcontractor, which has acquired by assignment the claim which a contractor has against a developer under a works contract, from adjusting the taxable amount for VAT purposes in the event of non-payment of that claim by that developer.

28      Article 90(1) of that directive, which relates to cases of cancellation, refusal or total or partial non-payment, or where the price is reduced after the supply takes place, provides for the reduction of the taxable amount and, consequently, the amount of VAT payable by the taxable person whenever, after a taxable transaction has been concluded, part or all of the consideration has not been received by the taxable person. That provision embodies one of the fundamental principles of that directive, the principle of fiscal neutrality, according to which the taxable amount is the consideration actually received and the corollary of which is that the tax authorities may not collect an amount of VAT exceeding the tax which the taxable person received (judgment of 9 February 2023, Euler Hermes, C‑482/21, EU:C:2023:83, paragraph 32).

29      Having regard to the wording of Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive, and the principle of fiscal neutrality, the formalities to be complied with by taxable persons in order to exercise, vis-à-vis the tax authorities, the right to reduce the taxable amount of VAT must be limited to those which make it possible to provide proof that, after a transaction has been concluded, part or all of the consideration will definitively not be received (judgment of 9 February 2023, Euler Hermes, C‑482/21, EU:C:2023:83, paragraph 33).

30      However, the question arises as to whether the right to make such a reduction belongs only to taxable persons who have carried out the taxable transaction in respect of which consideration is due and who are, on that basis, liable for VAT or whether that right also belongs to third-party taxable persons to whom those taxable persons have assigned the claim corresponding to that consideration.

31      In that regard, it should be noted, as regards the role of ‘taxable persons’, that, according to the case-law, it is not limited to that of tax collectors of VAT. In accordance with Article 193 of the VAT Directive, the obligation to pay VAT – or, at least, output VAT – is, in principle, addressed to them when carrying out a taxable supply of goods or services, and that obligation is not subject to the prior receipt of the consideration for the supply (judgment of 28 October 2021, X-Beteiligungsgesellschaft (VAT –Successive payments), C‑324/20, EU:C:2021:880, paragraph 53).

32      Under Article 63 of the VAT Directive, VAT is to become chargeable when the goods or services are supplied, that is, when the transaction in question takes place, regardless of whether the consideration due for that transaction has already been paid. Accordingly, VAT is due to the tax authorities by the supplier of goods or services, even where he or she has not yet received from his or her client the payment relating to the transaction carried out (judgment of 28 October 2021, X-Beteiligungsgesellschaft (VAT–Successive payments), C‑324/20, EU:C:2021:880, paragraph 54).

33      Where the supplier was a taxable person at the time when the goods were delivered or the services were supplied, the date on which, under Article 63 of the VAT Directive, the chargeable event occurs and the tax becomes chargeable, the supplier remains liable for the VAT which that supplier collected and received on behalf of the State, irrespective of the fact that that supplier has in the meantime lost its status as a taxable person. Furthermore, in view of the fact that the taxable amount, as defined in Article 73 of the VAT Directive, is the consideration actually received, that supplier may, even after having lost the status of taxable person, adjust the taxable amount so that it reflects the consideration actually received and so that the tax authorities do not collect as VAT an amount greater than that received by that supplier (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 October 2020, E. (VAT – Reduction of the taxable amount), C‑335/19, EU:C:2020:829, paragraph 40). It follows that the right to reduce the taxable amount is closely linked to the status of person liable for payment of VAT for the taxable transaction in respect of which that consideration is due.

34      In the case in the main proceedings, two transactions relating to taxable transactions were carried out. The first concerned the commercial relationship between the subcontractor and the contractor. The second consisted of the relationship between the contractor and the developer. The subcontractor was extraneous to the transaction between the contractor and the developer, who, for its part, did not participate in the transaction between the subcontractor and the contractor.

35      As regards the first transaction referred to in paragraph 34 above, and more specifically the question whether the condition of non-payment, laid down in Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive, is satisfied, account must be taken of both the payment in money and the assignment to the subcontractor of the contractor’s claim against the developer (see paragraph 18 above), as relevant factors for assessing whether the consideration due in the context of the taxable transactions between that subcontractor and that contractor has been paid, since such an assignment constitutes in itself remuneration and has economic value in itself (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 February 2023, Finanzamt X (Supplies of the owner of a stable), C‑713/21, not published, EU:C:2023:80, paragraphs 46 and 47).

36      In that regard, as has been stated in paragraphs 17 and 18 above, the contractor, in order to settle the invoices issued to it by the subcontractor, first, paid it RON 270 819.76, including VAT and, second, for the remainder of its debt in the amount of RON 1 700 000, including VAT, concluded with it an assignment of the claim authenticated on 24 July 2015, by which the subcontractor acquired the contractor’s claim against the developer. That assignment of the claim, as such, was not linked to the actual payment or the actual possibility of a future payment of the claim by the debtor, the developer. Subsequently, on 31 August 2021, the subcontractor recorded in its accounting records that the contractor’s debt ‘[had] been reduced to zero’. As is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling, those sums, amicably settled, corresponded to all the invoices issued by the subcontractor to the contractor. Accordingly, the whole of the initial debt, amounting to RON 1 970 819.76, was settled by the contractor.

37      Consequently, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the claim held by the subcontractor must be regarded as having been settled in its entirety, with the result that there is no basis for a reduction of the taxable amount for the subcontractor assignee.

38      As regards the second transaction referred to in paragraph 34 above, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that the developer, which was declared insolvent in December 2014, did not pay the contractor or, moreover, the subcontractor assignee, the sums corresponding to the invoices which were the subject of the adjustment made by the latter. As regards that transaction between the contractor and the developer, it must therefore be held that there is a ‘non-payment’, within the meaning of Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive, capable of justifying, if necessary, the reduction of the taxable amount.

39      As regards the question of who was entitled to reduce the taxable amount pursuant to that provision, it should be noted that the contractor was a taxable person at the time of the supply of the immovable property services at issue, the date on which, in accordance with Article 63 of the VAT Directive, the chargeable event occurred and the tax became chargeable (see paragraph 33 above).

40      Accordingly, first, the contractor remained liable for the VAT due for the second transaction referred to in paragraph 34 above, even after the assignment of the civil law claim to the subcontractor.

41      On that basis, second, in view of the fact that the taxable amount, as defined in Article 73 of the VAT Directive, consists of the consideration actually received (see paragraph 33 above), the contractor had the right to reduce the taxable amount in such a way that it reflects the non-payment of the consideration on account of the developer’s insolvency and that the tax authority does not receive, by way of VAT, an amount greater than that collected by the contractor. In that regard, as the referring court also states in its request for a preliminary ruling, as regards the assigned claim (see paragraph 36 above), the supplier of the services, for which the developer was required to pay a price, is and remains the contractor, who was a taxable person at the time when the services were supplied, that is to say, the date on which the chargeable event occurred and the tax became chargeable.

42      In the case in the main proceedings, the possibility of adjustment of the taxable amount by the contractor arose from the developer’s declaration of insolvency, followed by it being struck off the commercial register (see paragraphs 16 and 19 above), without it having satisfied its financial obligations towards the contractor arising from their business relationship, with that contractor failing to receive any part of the developer’s insolvency estate in payment of the claim held by the contractor. Consequently, as stated in the request for a preliminary ruling, the developer’s non-payment was definitive since the claim was definitively irrecoverable.

43      In addition, it should be noted, first, that the status of person liable for payment of VAT is acquired under the applicable tax provisions and that the VAT Directive does not contain any provision which provides for the possibility of transferring that status or the right to an adjustment by an agreement governed by private law, such as an assignment of a claim.

44      Moreover, the question of who is the taxable person entitled to a reduction in the taxable amount for VAT purposes is governed by EU VAT law, irrespective of the national rules that may govern assignments of debts under civil law (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 February 2023, Eurler Hermes, C‑482/21, EU:C:2023:83, paragraph 42).

45      Second, the right to an adjustment of the taxable amount must be regarded as a related or ancillary right in relation to the tax debt of the taxable person who is liable for payment of VAT and his or her right to claim a refund of the VAT duly paid.

46      In those circumstances, an assignment of a claim cannot have the effect of transferring the creditor’s obligation, registered as a taxable person for the purposes of VAT on the day of delivery of the goods or provision of the services, to pay the VAT due in respect of that transaction or his or her right to adjust the taxable amount a posteriori in order to relieve himself or herself of all or part of his or her tax debt (see, by analogy, judgment of 15 October 2020, E. (VAT) – Reduction of the taxable amount), C‑335/19, EU:C:2020:829, paragraphs 33, 40 and 41).

47      Therefore, in circumstances such as those of the dispute in the main proceedings, the right to reduce the taxable amount of VAT, provided for in Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive, cannot be exercised by the subcontractor assignee, which does not have the status of taxable person liable for payment in respect of the second transaction referred to in paragraph 34 above.

48      That interpretation is, moreover, consistent with the principle of fiscal neutrality, inherent in the common system of VAT, which seeks to relieve the taxable person entirely from the burden of the VAT payable or paid in the course of all his or her economic activities (see, to that effect, judgment of 9 February 2023, Euler Hermes, C‑482/21, EU:C:2023:83, paragraph 44; see also, by analogy, judgment of 26 November 2020, Sögård Fastigheter, C‑787/18, EU:C:2020:964, paragraphs 52 to 54).

49      Consequently, it cannot be held that, in the light of EU VAT law and irrespective of the national rules which may govern assignments of claims under civil law, a subcontractor assignee may be identified as the taxable person entitled, as regards the assigned claim falling within the scope of the main contractual relationship, relating to construction works, between the contractor and the developer, in which it did not participate, to a reduction of the taxable amount for VAT purposes under Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive.

50      In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the referring court’s question is that Article 90(1) of the VAT Directive must be interpreted as precluding a subcontractor, having acquired by assignment the claim which a contractor had against a developer under a works contract, from adjusting the taxable amount for VAT in the event of non-payment of that claim by that developer.

 Costs

51      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, sitting with five Judges)

hereby rules:

Article 90 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

must be interpreted as precluding a subcontractor, having acquired by assignment the claim which a contractor had against a developer under a works contract, from adjusting the taxable amount for value added tax in the event of non-payment of that claim by that developer.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 22 April 2026.

[Signatures]

*      Language of the case: Romanian.