VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Exemptions on importation and exportation 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 2012 to 2025.

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.

C-602/24 W. (Export without the knowledge of the taxable person)

Judgment · 1 August 2025 · Poland

Export exemption where the customer exports without the supplier's knowledge

The exemption applies. Where the right to dispose as owner passed, the goods physically left the European Union and there was no consumption inside it, the objective conditions of Article 146(1)(b) are met. The parties' original intention to make an intra-Community supply and the supplier's ignorance of the export are subjective factors and irrelevant, as is the fact that the tax authorities, not the supplier, produced the proof. The limits remain because formal breaches preventing conclusive proof of the substantive conditions, or the supplier's knowing participation in evasion. Relevant wherever a supplier zero-rates on the basis of the customer's transport documents and the goods turn out to have gone to a third country instead.

C-427/23 Határ Diszkont

Judgment · 1 August 2025

A refund handling fee is its own supply, and it is not a net amount

The Court held that the handling service is a distinct and independent supply and not part of a single supply with the goods, and that it is not covered by the exemptions relied on. The protection of legitimate expectations may be relied on against the tax authority where that authority had consistently treated such services as exempt and had not informed the taxable person of the change in the national legislation which, in its earlier version, expressly listed them among exempt activities. It is irrelevant in that context that the taxable person later received a non-binding reply, given after the event on a request for a ruling, stating that the services were ancillary costs sharing the treatment of the exempt principal transaction. Articles 73 and 78 preclude the practice of treating the amounts invoiced as the handling fee as net amounts not including VAT, where the supplier treated its supply as exempt and it is manifestly impossible for it to recover the VAT afterwards from the purchasers. The judgment separates two operations that a retailer performs in the same transaction with the same customer and gives them different treatment, and it does so without allowing the exemption on the goods to carry across to the service.

C-125/24 Palmstråle

Judgment · 12 June 2025 · Sweden

Reimportation exemption and breach of customs formalities

Failure to comply with formal obligations, presentation to customs and declaration for release for free circulation, does not preclude the exemption in Article 143(1)(e) for goods reimported in the state in which they were exported. Article 86(6) extends the returned goods relief to customs debts arising under Article 79, and would otherwise be deprived of effect. The qualification is that the exemption is lost where the failure constitutes an attempt at deception, and the national court must verify good faith and mere negligence. Assessments of import VAT founded purely on missed customs formalities on reimportation are open to challenge where the substantive conditions of Article 203 UCC are satisfied and there is no attempt at deception. Relevant to owners and handlers of goods temporarily taken outside the European Union, notably horses, artworks, exhibition goods, tools and equipment, and to their customs agents.

C-405/24 L (Petits envois non commerciaux)

Judgment · 8 May 2025 · Poland

Import exemption for small non-commercial consignments where the consignee lives in another Member State

The Court held that the exemption applies irrespective of whether the consignee resides in the Member State of importation or in another Member State, so national legislation restricting it to residents of the Member State of importation is precluded. Article 1(1) of Directive 2006/79 refers to "a Member State" without identifying the Member State of importation, unlike Articles 32, 86 and 163 of Directive 2006/112. The substantive conditions in Article 1(2) (occasional, personal use, value not exceeding EUR 45, no payment) still apply. Directly relevant to freight forwarders, customs agents and postal or express operators clearing low value gift consignments, particularly those using one Member State as a central point of entry for deliveries elsewhere in the EU.

C-461/21 Cartrans Preda

Judgment · 7 September 2023 · Romania

Proving the exemption for transport connected with importation

Recording the import, or the existence of an MRN, does not of itself and systematically mean the transport costs are in the import taxable amount. That must be verified. But the exemption cannot be automatically refused for want of the specific national documents where other evidence, whose authenticity is not in doubt, establishes the two substantive conditions. VAT recovery abroad is a supply of services. Withholding tax on non-residents restricts Article 56 TFEU, justifiable only by effective tax collection, and denying deduction of business expenses is precluded absent justification. Hauliers and freight forwarders invoicing import transport exempt must still positively evidence that their fee entered the import taxable amount.

C-656/19 BAKATI PLUS

Judgment · 17 December 2020 · Hungary

Retail export scheme and goods carried in travellers' personal luggage

The traveller exemption does not cover goods carried out of the EU for commercial purposes with a view to resale in a third State. Article 147 targets natural persons not acting as economic operators and promotes tourism. But Article 147 is only a special case of Article 146(1)(b), so failure of its conditions does not defeat the export exemption, which turns on objective criteria, not customs formalities or intention. Automatic refusal is precluded, unless the breach prevents proof of actual export or the taxable person knew or should have known of fraud jeopardising the VAT system. Relevant to retailers and wholesalers operating retail export (tax free shopping) schemes near external borders, and to their advisers.

C-653/18 Unitel

Judgment · 17 October 2019 · Poland

Export exemption where the actual customer is not identified

Such a blanket practice is precluded. Identification of the acquirer is not a condition of a supply of goods, which depends on the objective criteria of transfer of the right to dispose as owner and physical exit from the European Union. The exemption may nonetheless be refused where the failure to identify the acquirer prevents proof that those substantive conditions are met, or where the taxable person knew or should have known the transaction formed part of a fraud damaging the common VAT system. Fraud in a third country does not automatically exclude this. If refused, there is no taxable transaction and no input tax deduction. Exporters facing assessments because the invoiced customer turns out to be a front cannot be denied the zero rate on that ground alone. Relevant to electronics and other high risk export trades.

C-275/18 Vinš

Judgment · 28 March 2019 · Czechia

Export exemption and placing goods under the export customs procedure

The Court held that Articles 146(1)(a) and 131 preclude such a national condition where it is established that the substantive conditions of exemption, in particular that the goods actually left EU territory, are met. Placing goods under the export procedure is a customs formality, not a substantive VAT requirement, whether done before or retrospectively. Exemption may still be refused only for intentional participation in evasion or where the breach prevents conclusive proof that the substantive conditions are satisfied. Exporters refused the exemption purely for want of an export declaration, including small consignments sent by post or courier where no customs export procedure was followed, can rely on alternative evidence that the goods left the European Union.

C-531/17 Vetsch Int. Transporte

Judgment · 14 February 2019 · Austria

Import exemption under customs procedure 42 and downstream fraud

The exemption may not be refused. The import followed by the intra-Community transfer, and the later fraudulent intra-Community supply, are independent transactions. Where the fraud does not concern the transfer on which the import exemption depends, and there is no evidence that the importer knew or ought to have known of the recipient's fraud in the subsequent transaction, the exemption stands. It is for the Member State of the fraudulent supply (Bulgaria) to refuse exemption there. Useful for freight forwarders, customs agents and indirect representatives exposed to import VAT under procedure 42 arrangements.

C-495/17 Cartrans Spedition

Judgment · 8 November 2018 · Romania

Proving export for the exemption of transport services, TIR carnet versus customs declaration

Making the exemption conditional on a customs export declaration is precluded. Actual export remains a substantive condition, but the export declaration is a formality that generally falls on the exporter, not the carrier or intermediary. Authorities must assess all available information and decide whether export can be inferred with a sufficiently high degree of probability. A certified TIR carnet must be duly taken into account unless there are specific reasons to doubt its authenticity or reliability. Hauliers, freight forwarders and transport intermediaries facing assessments for want of an export declaration now have a clear basis to rely on TIR carnets, CMR notes and other transport documentation.

C-528/17 Božičevič Ježovnik

Judgment · 25 October 2018 · Slovenia

Import VAT exemption under customs procedure 42 and the importer's good faith

Import VAT liability is not aligned with customs debt liability. Where the exemption was granted following a prior customs examination of the importer's evidence, VAT cannot be recovered after the event merely because the substantive conditions turned out to be unmet. The exception is that recovery is possible where objective evidence shows the importer knew or should have known that the onward supplies were involved in the customer's fraud and failed to take all reasonable steps to avoid it. The national court must decide this. Confirms that procedure 42 importers are treated like intra-Community suppliers, not like customs debtors. Relevant to importers, freight forwarders and tax representatives using procedure 42, and to advisers defending post-clearance assessments in commodity trades.

C-108/17 Enteco Baltic

Judgment · 20 June 2018 · Lithuania

Import VAT exemption where the import is followed by an intra-Community supply

Naming a different purchaser is a formal breach only, so the exemption stands where the substantive Article 138(1) conditions are met and the change was notified, unless the importer knowingly participated in evasion or the breach prevents proof. E-AD drafts and CMR notes presented at importation can prove intended dispatch. E-ROR confirmations and reports of receipt can prove actual dispatch, including to a warehouse rather than the buyer. Good faith protects the importer unless he knew or should have known of the purchaser's fraud. Electronic communication alone proves nothing. Authorities need not gather information themselves. Relevant to fuel and commodity traders using customs procedure 42, and to their customs and excise advisers.

C-307/16 Pieńkowski

Judgment · 28 February 2018 · Poland

Retail export exemption and conditions imposed on the vendor

Those provisions preclude such legislation where mere failure to meet the conditions results in definitive loss of the exemption. Articles 146(1)(b) and 147 impose no turnover or agreement requirement, and the Article 147 conditions concern purchasers, not vendors. Once the substantive conditions are met and the goods have physically left the EU, no VAT liability arises and there is in principle no risk of evasion or revenue loss capable of justifying the measure, which is therefore disproportionate. Retailers operating tax-free shopping schemes for non-EU travellers can rely on the exemption once the substantive conditions of Articles 146(1)(b) and 147 are satisfied, irrespective of their size or whether they use an authorised refund intermediary. Relevant to smaller retailers in border regions and to advisers challenging national retail export rules that regulate the vendor rather than verify export.

C-273/16 Federal Express Europe

Judgment · 4 October 2017 · Italy

Exemption of transport services ancillary to exempt imports

Such national legislation is precluded. Where transport costs are included in the taxable amount under Article 86(1)(b), the ancillary supply follows the tax treatment of the import and is exempt under Article 144, even if no VAT was in fact levied at the customs stage. The exemption serves technical simplification, not the avoidance of double taxation. The extra Italian condition would deprive it of effect for consignments of negligible value or of a non-commercial character. Confirms that a carrier or express operator handling a low-value or non-commercial consignment charges no VAT on transport already included in the import taxable amount, whatever the import VAT position.

C-288/16 L.Č.

Judgment · 29 June 2017 · Latvia

Exemption for transport services subcontracted to another carrier

The exemption does not apply where the transport services relating to the movement of goods to a third country are not supplied directly to the consignor or the consignee. A direct connection requires two things: the service must by its subject matter contribute to the actual performance of the export or import, and it must be supplied directly to the exporter, importer or consignee. Being necessary to the export is not enough. A broad reading would conflict with the straightforward application of exemptions under Article 131. Subcontracted haulage in export and transit chains is taxable at the standard rate when invoiced to the principal carrier or freight forwarder rather than to the consignor, consignee, exporter or importer.

C-563/12 BDV Hungary Trading

Judgment · 19 December 2013 · Hungary

Time-limits for goods to leave the EU on export supplies

Articles 146(1) and 131 preclude such legislation. Article 146(1)(b) itself imposes no time-limit, and the exemption applies once the right to dispose of the goods has passed and the supplier shows they physically left the EU. Member States may fix a reasonable export deadline and tax the supply if it is missed, but they must allow the taxable person to prove later departure and to obtain repayment of VAT already paid. A non-remediable deadline is disproportionate. Exporters facing assessments purely because goods crossed the frontier late, especially on ex-works terms where the customer controls transport, can rely on this to obtain the exemption or a refund on producing evidence of actual departure.

C-250/11 Lietuvos geležinkeliai

Judgment · 19 July 2012 · Lithuania

Fuel in standard tanks, relief does not extend to locomotives

The relief and exemption do not apply to locomotives. Language versions diverge on whether the vehicle must be a "road" vehicle, so the provisions were read by reference to their purpose. Easing border crossings and avoiding disproportionate systematic tank checks. With few locomotives crossing and tanks of up to 7 000 litres, that rationale does not hold. Equal treatment does not compel a different result. Different transport modes are not generally interchangeable. The third question fell away. Rail operators refuelling outside the EU cannot claim the standard tank relief for import duty or import VAT, and must declare imported fuel and account for excise duty.

Related topics

Exemptions · Tax evasion and abuse · Proof · Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality · Supply of goods · Supply of goods or services · Legitimate expectations · Transactions concerning deposit and current accounts · Supply of services · Single and composite supplies