VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Effectiveness EU VAT case law

11 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2011 to 2026.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 11 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-198/25 G Kft. (Adjustment of VAT after a tax inspection)

Judgment · 3 June 2026

Adjustment of VAT wrongly invoiced after a tax inspection

The Court answers that it does not. Such national legislation is compatible with EU law provided that the taxable person had, in real terms, a genuine opportunity and a reasonable period in which to adjust the VAT before the inspection was opened, during the inspection itself, or when challenging the decision closing it. The Court regarded it as relevant that the taxpayer had had several years in which to act and that there were no objective circumstances that had prevented it from doing so. The judgment confirms that the neutrality of VAT does not, on its own, override national procedural requirements where those requirements respect the principle of effectiveness and legal certainty.

C-746/22 Slovenské Energetické Strojárne

Judgment · 16 May 2024 · Hungary

Late replies to requests for additional information in cross-border VAT refund claims

The Court held that such a national prohibition is precluded. The one-month period in Article 20(2) is not a limitation period, and the taxpayer must be able to regularise its claim by producing the information on appeal, whether administrative or judicial. Discontinuation of the procedure is, however, permissible, provided it is treated as a decision refusing the refund application under Article 23(1), with reasons notified, and is open to an appeal meeting Article 23(2). Businesses reclaiming VAT in other Member States under the electronic refund procedure can rely on this where a claim has been closed for a missed one-month deadline.

C-453/22 Schütte

Judgment · 7 September 2023 · Germany

Direct claim against the tax authorities for VAT overcharged by suppliers

The Directive and those principles require that the purchaser be able to claim reimbursement directly from the tax authority. Where the purchaser is guilty of no fraud, abuse or negligence and recovery from the suppliers is impossible or excessively difficult, here because of limitation, a direct claim against the tax authorities must be available, with default interest if reimbursement is not made within a reasonable time. Supplier insolvency is only one example of impossibility. The double refund risk is excluded. Suppliers who first invoked limitation and then sought repayment would be acting abusively. Confirms that Reemtsma style direct claims are not confined to insolvent suppliers.

C-482/21 Euler Hermes

Judgment · 9 February 2023 · Hungary

Bad debt relief claimed by a trade credit insurer

Article 90(1) and fiscal neutrality do not preclude such legislation. The portion of the debt for which the insurer paid compensation was in fact received by the suppliers as consideration (consideration may come from a third party), so there is no non-payment for that part and no relief for the suppliers either. Assignment under civil law does not make the insurer the taxable person entitled to reduce the taxable amount. Treating it as such would breach neutrality. Credit insurers and factoring or debt purchase businesses cannot recover the VAT element of indemnified debts by standing in the supplier's shoes.

C-213/19 Commission v United Kingdom (Action to counter undervaluation fraud)

Judgment · 8 March 2022 · United Kingdom

Undervalued imports, customs value, import VAT and own resources liability

For customs procedure 40 imports, an undeclared true customs value necessarily distorts the import VAT taxable amount, so Articles 2(1)(d) and 85 to 87 were breached. For procedure 42, there is no link between customs value and the taxable amount, which rests on the purchase price invoiced in the Member State of destination. Liability for uncollected VAT lies there, not with the Member State of importation. The claim for quantified VAT own resources losses failed. Undervaluation does not necessarily reduce net VAT receipts, since importers and traders recover input tax. Confirms that customs valuation failings automatically infect the import VAT base under Article 85, so a revaluation carries a parallel import VAT assessment.

C-835/18 Terracult

Judgment · 2 July 2020 · Romania

Correcting invoices after a final tax assessment where reverse charge applied

The Directive and those principles preclude such legislation or practice. Where the reverse charge applied, the supplier was never the person liable, no risk of loss of revenue arises (the recipient can deduct), and refusal to refund imposes a burden contrary to neutrality. Finality of the earlier assessment cannot bar correction while the five-year limitation period runs, particularly where the relevant facts emerged only after the assessment and the complaint window was days. Negligence may attract a penalty, but not outright denial of refund. Fraud or abuse would be different. Relevant to suppliers in reverse charge sectors (cereals, industrial crops and other Article 199a categories) and to anyone who has paid an assessment rather than appeal it.

C-310/16 Dzivev and Others

Judgment · 17 January 2019 · Bulgaria

Unlawfully authorised telephone intercepts in VAT fraud prosecutions

The effectiveness principle does not oblige a national court to set aside such an exclusionary rule. Interception authorised by a court lacking jurisdiction is not "in accordance with the law" for Article 52(1) of the Charter and interferes unlawfully with Article 7 privacy rights, so the national rule reflects EU requirements rather than obstructing them. Neither the unclear drafting of the jurisdiction transfer provision nor the fact that the evidence is decisive for one defendant alters that conclusion. A limit on the Taricco and Kolev line.

C-81/17 Zabrus Siret

Judgment · 26 April 2018 · Romania

Correcting VAT returns for periods already audited

Those provisions and principles preclude such legislation. Where an inspection follows shortly after filing, the shortened window makes deduction impossible or excessively difficult. Refusal of deduction for a remediable formal failure, absent evasion or loss to the exchequer, is disproportionate. Legal certainty cannot be invoked by the authorities here, since the system also permits correction on their initiative and reopening on new information, so it serves the efficiency of inspections rather than taxpayers' rights. Fatorie distinguished. Member States may instead impose administrative fines on negligent taxpayers. Member States may keep a limitation period for claiming deduction, but cannot truncate it by treating a closed audit as a bar to taxpayer-initiated corrections.

C-38/16 Compass Contract Services

Judgment · 14 June 2017 · United Kingdom

Different transitional limitation periods for repayment and deduction claims

The Court held that the principles do not preclude such legislation. The right to repayment of overpaid VAT derives from general EU law and neutralises a wrongly imposed burden. The right to deduct is inherent in the VAT system and presupposes tax actually due. The two are not comparable, so equal treatment permits different transitional dates. Neutrality was not engaged (no differing treatment of competing traders), and a three-year period with non-retroactive transitional arrangements is reasonable. Confirms that overpayment claims and input tax claims are legally distinct for limitation purposes, so a taxpayer cannot borrow the more generous cut-off applying to the other category.

C-284/11 EMS-Bulgaria Transport

Judgment · 12 July 2012 · Bulgaria

Limitation period for exercising the right to deduct on late-accounted intra-Community acquisitions

Limitation periods for exercising the right to deduct are compatible with those articles provided they do not make exercise of the right impossible or excessively difficult in practice. The national court assesses this, taking account of a later substantial extension of the period and of the time taken by a registration procedure that had to be completed inside it. Fiscal neutrality precludes refusal of deduction as a penalty for late accounting. Default interest is permitted if proportionate, and not if it equals the deductible tax. Confirms that non-registration cannot defeat deduction where the substantive conditions are met, registration being a formal verification requirement. Relevant to businesses that account for acquisition or reverse charge VAT late, and to advisers challenging domestic deduction windows.

C-427/10 Banca Antoniana Popolare Veneta

Judgment · 15 December 2011 · Italy

Mismatched time-limits for recovering VAT paid but not due

The Court held that the principle of effectiveness does not preclude such asymmetric time-limits, and a two-year fiscal limitation period is in itself reasonable, provided the supplier can effectively claim reimbursement from the tax authority. That condition is not met where applying the rules, here by giving the 1999 circular retroactive effect so that time ran from payment, totally deprives the supplier of any refund of VAT it has had to repay to its customers. Relevant wherever a tax authority changes its view on exemption retroactively and customers then reclaim VAT from suppliers under general civil law.

Related topics

Fiscal neutrality · Rules governing exercise of the right of deduction · Right of deduction · Proportionality · Refund of VAT · Own resources of the European Union · Protection of the European Union’s financial interests · Recovery of undue payment · Taxable amount · Obligation of good faith