Liability of the director for the company's public debt: When does the court decide and when does the tax administrator decide?

The dispute concerned an executive whose company was fined for operating a gambling business without authorisation. Since the company did not pay, the tax administrator tried to collect the amount directly from the executive, through civil proceedings.

However, the Supreme Court found that liability for public claims (e.g. administrative fines) cannot be decided by the general courts. In such a case, the tax administrator has the power to assess for himself — as a so-called preliminary question — whether the manager has breached the duty of care of a proper manager and whether this has created liability under Section 159 (3) of the Civil Code.

The tax administrator can then issue a summons for payment, which constitutes a writ of execution. The considerations of the trustee are subsequently reviewable in the administrative judiciary.

This decision reinforces the role of the tax administrator in the recovery of public debts after the administrator and confirms that liability for breach of the duty of care of a good housekeeper is not exclusively the domain of the civil courts. This is a key shift that both tax authorities and statutory authorities must take into account.