VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Exemptions for intra-Community transactions EU VAT case law

17 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2010 to 2026.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 17 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-614/25 Trading 4

Judgment · 9 September 2026 · Latvia

Chain of supplies with a single intra-Community transport, triangular transaction, excise goods moving under a duty suspension arrangement, Articles 138(1), 141 and 197(1) of the VAT Directive

Those three circumstances do not, in themselves, exempt the supply made by the taxable person registered in the first Member State to the intermediary acquiring the goods and registered in the second. The third question was held inadmissible. The simplification arrangement in Article 141 concerns the intermediaries established in the second Member State, whereas the dispute concerns the application of Article 138(1), read in the light of Article 141, to the transactions carried out by Trading 4 in the first Member State, so the question bears no relation to the subject matter of the main proceedings. The judgment keeps the ascription of the single transport as the operative question in a chain, and refuses to let three surrounding facts stand in for it. It reaches fuel and other excise goods moving under suspension, where the duty arrangement and the transfer of the right to dispose of the goods run on separate tracks.

C-639/24 FLO VENEER

Judgment · 13 November 2025 · Croatia

Proof of intra-Community dispatch outside the Article 45a presumption

Exemption cannot be refused on the sole ground that the Article 45a evidence has not been supplied. Article 45a sets out cases where a presumption applies. It is not an exhaustive list of admissible proof. Where the presumption conditions are unmet, the national authorities must assess all evidence produced as to dispatch or transport. Exemption may still be lost only where the taxable person intentionally participated in tax evasion, or where the formal breach prevents conclusive proof of the substantive conditions. Confirms that the 2020 quick fix presumption is a safe harbour, not a gateway. Relevant to exporters of goods within the EU, hauliers' documentation practices and anyone facing assessments premised purely on defective Article 45a files.

C-234/24 Brose Prievidza

Judgment · 23 October 2025 · Bulgaria

Refund of VAT on tooling that never leaves the supplier's Member State

Refusal is precluded where the equipment has not physically left the territory of the supplier's Member State, unless, on all the circumstances, that supply forms part of a single indivisible economic supply with, or is ancillary to, the intra-Community supplies of the goods produced using it. Without physical movement to the acquirer there is no intra-Community acquisition and hence no exempt supply. Supplies by two independent suppliers, separately contracted and invoiced, with no abuse alleged, are normally independent. Useful for manufacturers and contract manufacturing groups where tooling is bought, often via a central group purchasing entity, and left with the producer.

C-676/22 B2 Energy

Judgment · 29 February 2024 · Czechia

Proving the acquirer's taxable status for an intra-Community supply

The exemption must be refused where the supplier has not shown that the goods were supplied to a recipient having taxable status in the Member State of arrival and, in the light of the factual circumstances and the evidence supplied, the information needed to verify that status is lacking. Physical delivery to the recipient named in the tax documents is not itself a substantive condition. Authorities must weigh all documents held. Only if verification remains impossible is refusal justified, and then no proof of fraud is needed. Relevant to traders whose CMR notes, delivery notes, weighbridge tickets and bank statements show receipt by a party other than the invoiced customer, notably in bulk commodity and agri-oil chains.

C-664/21 NEC PLUS ULTRA COSMETICS

Judgment · 2 March 2023 · Slovenia

Time limits for producing proof of an intra-Community supply

They do not preclude such legislation, provided the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are respected. The Court stressed the qualification. Where the evidence is offered before any assessment notice has been adopted, a refusal to take it into account must rest on particular circumstances, for instance an unjustified delay or a loss of tax revenue. Blanket exclusion at that early stage, ignoring the taxpayer's explanations, is hard to reconcile with proportionality and neutrality. The national court must assess this. National evidential cut-offs in audit procedures survive, but they cannot be applied mechanically.

C-580/16 Firma Hans Bühler

Judgment · 19 April 2018 · Austria

Triangulation simplification, identification in the dispatch Member State and late recapitulative statements

Article 141(c) is met because only the VAT number under which the intermediary made the acquisition matters, so establishment and identification in the dispatch Member State do not block the simplification. Late filing of the recapitulative statement is a formal failure and cannot alone trigger Article 41 where the substantive condition in Article 42(a) is met, nor need the number still be valid when the statement is filed. Refusal remains possible where the taxable person knowingly participated in evasion or the breach prevents proof of the substantive conditions. Intermediaries in ABC chains can rely on triangulation even where they hold a VAT number in the dispatch Member State, provided they use their other number for the acquisition.

C-386/16 Toridas

Judgment · 26 July 2017 · Lithuania

Ascribing the single intra-Community transport in a chain supply

The first supply is not exempt where the second supply actually took place before the goods left the first Member State and the goods were then transported to the second purchaser. The single transport is ascribed to the second supply alone. The middleman's VAT identification in another Member State is not a criterion for classifying an intra-Community transaction, nor sufficient evidence of one. Processing after the first supply has no bearing, since the substantive conditions of Article 138(1) are exhaustive. A risk of double taxation does not justify exemption. Confirms that in back-to-back chains the decisive point is when the power to dispose as owner passes to the final customer, not who arranges transport or where the middleman is registered. Relevant to food, commodity and distribution chains using intermediaries, and to advisers relying on a customer's foreign VAT number as comfort for zero-rating.

C-26/16 Santogal M-Comércio e Reparação de Automóveis

Judgment · 14 June 2017 · Portugal

Exemption for intra-Community supplies of new means of transport

The conditions in Article 138(2)(a) are exhaustive. No residence or domicile requirement may be imposed, and temporary registration in the destination State is not in itself a ground for refusal. The vendor cannot be required to prove definitive use or that acquisition VAT was paid. The exemption may be refused for purchaser fraud only where objective evidence shows the vendor knew or ought to have known and failed to take all reasonable steps, a matter for the national court. Relevant to vehicle, boat and aircraft dealers selling new means of transport cross-border to private individuals, and to advisers dealing with Member States that in practice demand proof of the buyer's residence or of definitive registration and taxation in the destination State.

C-21/16 Euro Tyre

Judgment · 9 February 2017 · Portugal

VIES registration of the customer and the intra-Community supply exemption

Exemption cannot be refused on that sole ground. Possession of a VAT number valid for intra-Community transactions and VIES registration are formal requirements, not substantive conditions under Article 138(1), provided there is no sound evidence of fraud and the substantive conditions are established. The vendor's awareness of the customer's registration position and its expectation of retroactive registration do not justify refusal. Formal failure remains fatal only where the taxable person intentionally participated in evasion or where it prevents conclusive proof of the substantive conditions. Confirms the Plöckl and VSTR line for the customer's registration status. Relevant to distribution groups selling cross-border to newly established or newly registered affiliates, and to anyone facing assessments based on VIES checks alone.

C-24/15 Plöckl

Judgment · 20 October 2016 · Germany

Exemption of an intra-Community transfer without a destination VAT number

Those provisions preclude such a refusal. The destination VAT identification number is a formal, not substantive, condition. Neutrality requires exemption where the substantive conditions of Article 28a(5)(b) are met. Only two exceptions survive: intentional participation in tax evasion, or non-compliance that actually prevents proof that the substantive conditions are satisfied. Where evasion is ruled out, no "all reasonable measures" test applies. VSTR is confined to establishing non-participation in evasion. Breach may be penalised by a proportionate fine. Confirms that transfers of own goods between Member States are treated like intra-Community supplies for exemption purposes, and that registration in the destination State is evidential rather than constitutive.

C-131/13 Schoenimport Italmoda Mariano Previti and Others

Judgment · 18 December 2014 · Netherlands

Refusing deduction, exemption and refund for known evasion without a national rule

The Court held that it is for the national authorities and courts to refuse those rights even in the absence of any provision of national law providing for refusal, where it is established on objective factors that the taxable person knew or should have known that the transaction relied on formed part of evasion committed in a chain of supplies. It further held that the benefit may be refused notwithstanding that the evasion was carried out in a Member State other than the one in which the rights are claimed, and notwithstanding formal compliance with that State's legislation. The strongest statement of the anti-abuse principle in the VAT field.

C-492/13 Traum

Judgment · 9 October 2014 · Bulgaria

Evidence required for intra-Community supply exemption

Refusal is precluded where the evidence supplied matches the list of documents prescribed by national law and was initially accepted by the authorities as establishing entitlement. Retroactive removal of the purchaser's VAT number cannot in itself defeat exemption. The national court must verify this, and exemption is lost if objective evidence shows the supplier knew or should have known of fraud by the purchaser and failed to take reasonable steps. Article 138(1) has direct effect. Confirms that suppliers relying on the national list of proofs, and on VIES data checked and accepted by the tax authority, cannot later be taxed because that authority invents additional requirements such as signature authentication or proof of the signatory's mandate.

C-587/10 VSTR

Judgment · 27 September 2012 · Germany

Exemption refused for want of the customer's VAT identification number

Such a national requirement is permissible, but exemption cannot be refused on that ground alone where the supplier, acting in good faith and having taken all measures reasonably required, cannot supply the number yet produces other evidence sufficiently showing the customer is a taxable person acting as such. The customer's third-country establishment is irrelevant. The Court also noted that, in chain transactions, exemption of the first supply depends on the transport being ascribable to it, a matter for the national court. Confirms the identification number as a formal, not substantive, condition: suppliers in chain transactions who requested the number and were given the onward customer's number instead retain the exemption if good faith and taxable status are otherwise evidenced.

C-273/11 Mecsek-Gabona

Judgment · 6 September 2012 · Hungary

Evidence of intra-Community supply where the purchaser collects the goods

Article 138(1) does not preclude refusal of the exemption where it is established on objective evidence either that the vendor failed to meet its evidential obligations under national law and general practice for similar transactions, or that it knew or should have known the transaction formed part of the purchaser's fraud and had not taken every reasonable step to prevent its participation. That assessment is for the national court. But the exemption cannot be refused solely because of retroactive deregistration of the purchaser's VAT number. Confirms that in ex works sales where the customer collects, the vendor's evidence necessarily depends on what the customer supplies, and conclusive proof of physical exit cannot be demanded.

C-430/09 Euro Tyre Holding

Judgment · 16 December 2010 · Netherlands

Ascribing the single intra-Community transport in chain supplies

There is no general rule. The transport is ascribed to whichever supply satisfies all the conditions of an intra-Community supply, on an overall assessment of the circumstances. Where the first purchaser obtains the right to dispose of the goods as owner in the Member State of departure, states its intention to transport them to another Member State and gives a VAT number issued there, the transport is ascribed to the first supply, but only if the power of disposal passes to the second purchaser in the Member State of destination. The foundation case for chain transactions. Relevant to distribution, wholesale and commodity chains and their advisers.

C-285/09 R.

Judgment · 7 December 2010 · Germany

Refusal of the intra-Community supply exemption where the supplier conceals the true purchaser

The Member State of departure may refuse the exemption. Producing false invoices and returns compromises the transitional arrangements, which rest on taxable persons' own evidence, and falls within the Member States' power under the opening words of Article 28c(A) to prevent evasion. Proportionality, neutrality, legal certainty and legitimate expectations do not assist a supplier who has intentionally participated in the evasion. The holding is expressly confined to circumstances of the supplier's own active concealment. Confirms that exemption can be denied to a supplier who is a knowing participant in the fraud, even where dispatch is undisputed and the tax loss arises abroad. Relevant to traders in high-value mobile goods (vehicles, electronics) and their advisers.

C-84/09 X

Judgment · 18 November 2010 · Sweden

Intra-Community acquisition of a new means of transport, timing of transport and of the newness test

No time limit for commencing or completing the transport can be imposed. A temporal and material link between supply and transport, and continuity in the transaction, are required. For new means of transport, the intra-Community character rests on an overall assessment of objective circumstances plus the purchaser's intentions supported by objective evidence identifying the Member State of final use. Newness is judged when the vendor transfers the right to dispose as owner, not on arrival. Interim private use, even for months, does not preclude that classification. Relevant to boat, aircraft and vehicle dealers selling cross-border to private buyers, and to advisers on yacht acquisitions.

Related topics

Transitional arrangements for intra-Community trade · Triangular transaction · Refund of VAT · Supply of goods · Transport under an excise duty suspension arrangement · Proof · Principles of neutrality, proportionality and effectiveness · Place of an intra-Community acquisition of goods · Exemptions · Simplification measures