Chargeable event and chargeability of the tax EU VAT case law

3 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2017 to 2026.

Search within this topic The cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

Article 2 of Directive 2006/112/EC Subject matter and scope · 2 of these cases
Article 70 of Directive 2006/112/EC Importation of goods · 2 of these cases
Article 71 of Directive 2006/112/EC Importation of goods · 2 of these cases
Article 30 of Directive 2006/112/EC Importation of goods · 1 of these cases
Article 66 of Directive 2006/112/EC Supply of goods or services · 1 of these cases
Article 201 of Directive 2006/112/EC Persons liable for payment of VAT to the tax authorities · 1 of these cases
Article 202 of Directive 2006/112/EC Persons liable for payment of VAT to the tax authorities · 1 of these cases
Article 205 of Directive 2006/112/EC Persons liable for payment of VAT to the tax authorities · 1 of these cases

The 3 cases, most recent first

Under each case, what the Court decided, from its summary. The summaries are AI-generated and are not official documents: open the case for the Court’s own text.

T-383/25 Segelbootwartung

Judgment · 21 October 2026 · Germany

A sailing boat brought in without customs clearance for repairs and then re-exported is not an importation subject to VAT

The General Court holds that the unauthorised introduction of a means of transport into the customs territory of the Union is not an importation subject to VAT where objective and verifiable evidence shows that it was not intended for use in the Union and that it was re-exported without having actually been used there. The presumption that goods unlawfully introduced have entered the economic network of the Union can be rebutted, because VAT is a tax on consumption and goods intended for use outside the Union do not compete with Union goods. Use of a means of transport means carrying people or goods, and neither moving the boat to the repair yard nor making it fit for navigation counts as such use. The repair services may be taxable in their own right, but they are separate from the importation. On the customs question, maintenance and repair work before re-export is not use under Article 124(1)(k) of the Customs Code where it could have been authorised under the inward processing procedure, which the referring court must verify. The judgment extends to means of transport the case law allowing the presumption of entry into the economic network to be rebutted, and confines the seizure cases such as Dansk Transport og Logistik (C-230/08) to goods that by their nature were destined for consumption in the Union.

C-224/18 Budimex

Judgment · 2 May 2019 · Poland

Time of supply of construction works and formal acceptance by the client

Article 66, first paragraph, point (c) does not preclude treating formal acceptance as the time of supply. But only if the acceptance formality was agreed in the contract on terms reflecting the economic and commercial realities of the sector, and if it constitutes the actual completion of the service and determines the consideration due, a matter for the national court. Other formalities, such as a breakdown of expenses or a final payment certificate, are not decisive. Relevant to contractors, engineering and installation businesses and their advisers in Member States that time chargeability by reference to the date of supply plus an invoicing deadline.

C-154/16 Latvijas Dzelzceļš

Judgment · 18 May 2017 · Latvia

Import VAT on goods destroyed under external transit

Article 203(1) does not apply where destruction or irretrievable loss is proven to a satisfactory standard. Such goods cannot enter the EU economic network. Article 204(1)(a) applies instead, so a customs debt arises in principle for the part not produced intact, unless the national court finds force majeure or unforeseeable circumstances under Article 206(1). Import VAT, however, is not due on the destroyed or irretrievably lost part, because those goods cannot be integrated into the EU economy and so are not imported. The principal remains liable. Customs need not pursue the carrier. Confirms a clean split between customs duty and import VAT on transit shortfalls.