The study deals with the appearance of ne bis in idem in administrative cases, focusing on the cases of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It focuses on newly emerging cases which do not contain an explicit criminal law element and thus have had to decide on the multiple application of sanctions of an administrative nature. It also refers to the Strasbourg Court’s practice on criminal charges and ne bis in idem, since the key issue for the applicability of the ne bis in idem principle is whether the sanction can be considered criminal in nature. The Engel criteria were used to determine this, which provided sufficient guidance in the initial period, but later cases began to apply a much more complex set of criteria. The paper presents the trends in the EU in the field of multiple administrative sanctions, its twists and turns and the issues raised in the application of the principle from an administrative perspective.

In the state in which the Slovak Republic functioned until 31 December 2016, there was no legal regulation of interest on VAT refund, which would allow the tax admini-strator to award taxpayers compensation for the retained VAT refund during tax audit. The institution of “compensation for VAT refund retained during tax audit“ (provision of Article 79a) was incorporated into the Act on VAT only with effect from 1 January 2017 under the influence of the decision-making activity of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this area. Based on the analysis of the examined issues in the current decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic, the objective of this article is to propose solutions de lege ferenda for the system functioning in the Slovak Republic in connection with the problem of compensation for VAT refund retained during tax audit for the period up to 31 December 2016, as well as to point out other unresolved matters related to the amount of interest and the period for which interest on VAT refund in question is to be calculated in light of the current legislation of European Union in this area.

The article analyses CJEU judgments passed as a result of preliminary rulings and their impact on the judicial decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court. Admini­strative courts are highly committed to and keen on referring preliminary rulings to the CJEU, which is a noteworthy fact. In assessing the implementation of the right legal instruments, the CJEU, by way of its judgments, often grants protection to taxable persons. These judgments have often resulted in legislative changes or changes in the interpretation of legal provisions. In some cases, the previous line of judicial decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court is legitimised and proven as correct.
What deserves particular attention is the CJEU’s existing judicial practice of dealing with tax law abuse cases, which is used by the SAC when examining cases involving tax carousels.

Margin squeezing is an abuse of dominant position, which is not directly mentioned in Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It is the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the Euro­pean General Court that have recognised this practice as anti­competitive, initially treating it as anti­competitive refusal to supply. Given the many similarities between these practices, there are questions as to whether margin squeeze should be consi­dered an separate manifestation of an abuse of dominant position. The aim of the article is to analyse the position of the European Commission in this regard and juxtapose it with the views contained in relevant judicial decisions, judgements, and rulings, as well as to compare it with the regulations adopted in the United States.

Using a surname as a trademark or part of a trademark has been the subject of numerous case-laws and has been widely discussed in the literature. However, it seems that after the Messi case (cases C-449/18 P and C-474/18 P), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) seems to have departed from their previous approach where it was held that surnames in trademarks should be treated as normal signs. In the Messi case, the CJEU, however, ruled that the reputation of Messi – an internationally famous football player – is so well known that an average consumer, seeing the ‘MESSI’ mark placed on clothing, gymnastic or sporting articles and protective equipment, will establish a link between the mark and the sports personality, despite the similarity between the ‘MESSI’ mark to the ‘MASSI’ brand name, a previously registered trademark. However, this ruling gives rise to the following questions, which this article seeks to address:
- How can one prove that someone’s surname is globally recognised?
- Why did the CJEU decide that Messi is better known than, for instance, Picasso who was the subject of the previous case? Who else can be as famous as Messi if Picasso was held not to be?
- Has Messi changed the CJEU’s approach and opened the floodgates to expand trademark protection for an unlimited number of trademarks?

This article attempts to answer these questions.

The paper entitled “Counteracting Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion in Selected EU Directives on Direct Taxes” discusses the provisions of Directive 2003/49/EC, Directive 2009/133/EC and Directive 2011/96/EC that are capable of withdrawing the benefits provided under the directives in the case of tax fraud and abuse, tax evasion or tax avoidance. The paper reviews provisions of the directives and also the case law of the European Court of Justice concerning tax fraud and abuse. The jurisprudence of the ECJ plays a key role in setting standards for regulations on the prevention of tax evasion and avoidance adopted by Member States of the European Union. The paper’s centre piece argument is that the solution adopted by the EU legislator, which shifted the burden of preventing tax escape from the EU to Member States, is ineffective and falls short of fulfilling its proper role. The paper emphasises that many tax payers take advantage of the fundamental treaty freedoms and applicable directives to obtain tax benefits or double non-taxation. Limitations imposed by a strict jurisprudential approach of the European Court of Justice also pose a significant barrier to effective tackling the negative phenomenon of aggressive tax planning based on EU laws, the paper suggests. By assessing the effects of the application of the existing regulations and juxtaposing them with the current scale of the problem, the author presents an argument for changing the direction of measures taken to curb international tax avoidance and evasion.

The article discusses the phenomenon of "tax carousels" in the tax on goods and services, which is a specific abusive practice and is used for VAT refund scam purposes. A discussion on the jurisprudential doctrine of the abuse of law and good faith as offered by the Court of Justice of the European Union is followed by an analysis of the judicial decisions (case-law) issued in this area, which proves that taxable persons involved in value-added tax fraud practice have no right to a tax deduction. Meanwhile, those taxable persons who have fallen victim to tax fraud practices may quote the good faith doctrine and exercise the right to a tax deduction. The judicial decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union have had a significant impact on the judicial decisions issued by administrative courts in Poland. The Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) tries to define the notion of a "tax carousel" in its decisions, as the notion is quite broad.