VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Harmonisation of fiscal legislation EU VAT case law

13 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2018 to 2025.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 13 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-646/24 MS KLJUČAROVCI

Judgment · 3 December 2025 · Slovenia

Triangular simplification in a four party chain, and fraud

Article 141(c) does not require the person to whom the subsequent supply is made to take physical possession or receipt. Transport to that person's own customer in the same Member State does not prevent the condition being met, and the intermediary's knowledge of the onward supply is irrelevant, transactions being taxed on their objective characteristics. However, the authorities and courts of the Member State of identification must refuse both the Article 42 and 141 scheme and the second paragraph of Article 41 reduction where the acquirer knew or should have known it was participating in fraud in the chain. Useful for traders and advisers structuring chain transactions.

C-83/23 H GmbH (Direct right to a refund of VAT)

Judgment · 5 September 2024 · Germany

Limits of the direct claim against the tax authority for VAT wrongly invoiced

The recipient has no direct claim against the tax authority in those circumstances. Where the tax authority has already refunded the wrongly invoiced VAT to the supplier, it cannot be required to pay it a second time to the recipient, and the Reemtsma case law does not apply. The supplier's liquidation is irrelevant because that case law does not disturb the ranking of creditors, and the authority need not absorb the disruption to the normal refund chain. The direct claim remains an exception, available only where the recipient has exhausted its available remedies against the supplier. Recipients of invoices bearing the wrong Member State's VAT must act promptly against the supplier, including suing for a corrected invoice showing the VAT of the place of supply, before the supplier is refunded or dissolved. Relevant to cross-border leasing and sale and leaseback structures, and to anyone relying on HUMDA.

C-378/21 Finanzamt Österreich (VAT invoiced incorrectly to final consumers)

Judgment · 8 December 2022 · Austria

VAT wrongly invoiced to final consumers at too high a rate

Article 203 does not apply. It targets the risk of loss of revenue created by the recipient's right of deduction, and it bites only on the amount exceeding the VAT properly due under Article 193. Where the recipients are exclusively final consumers with no deduction right, there is no such risk and the supplier is not liable under Article 203 for the incorrectly invoiced part. The remaining questions did not need answering. Relevant to B2C businesses that have applied too high a rate, especially retail, leisure and hospitality operators issuing simplified till receipts where reissuing invoices to individual customers is impracticable.

C-397/21 HUMDA

Judgment · 13 October 2022 · Hungary

Direct claim against the tax authority for VAT invoiced in error by an insolvent supplier

Such national legislation is precluded where recovery from the supplier is impossible or excessively difficult due to liquidation and no fraud or abuse is attributable to either party, so there is no risk of revenue loss. Under Article 183, read with neutrality, interest is due if the refund is not made within a reasonable period after the request. The rules for calculating it are for national law, subject to equivalence and effectiveness and to giving adequate compensation. The VAT was not levied in breach of EU law, since Article 203 makes invoiced VAT payable. Confirms and extends Reemtsma beyond reverse charge and deduction disputes. Relevant to construction, events and other property related services where place of supply is misapplied, and to anyone holding claims against insolvent suppliers.

C-627/21 Administraţia Judeţeană a Finanţelor Publice Sibiu and Direcţia Generală Regională a Finanţelor Publice Braşov

Order · 2 May 2022 · Romania

Deregistration for inactivity cannot trigger an irrebuttable adjustment of input tax

The Court holds that those provisions preclude such rules and practice. An irrebuttable presumption that the capital goods have been used for purposes other than economic activity denies the taxable person any possibility of proving the contrary, and so goes beyond what is necessary to ensure the correct collection of the tax and to prevent evasion. One of a series of Romanian cases on the consequences of deregistration, alongside Promexor Trade and Siemens Gamesa.

C-487/20 Philips Orăştie

Judgment · 10 February 2022 · Romania

Bank guarantees and the refund of disputed VAT, the principle of equivalence

Articles 179 and 183, together with the principle of equivalence, preclude national procedural rules governing VAT refund claims based on breach of the common VAT system that are less favourable than those applicable to comparable claims founded on domestic law concerning other taxes and duties. The Court left it to the referring court to identify genuinely comparable domestic actions and to verify that the VAT rules are in fact less favourable, and likewise to assess whether the financial burden lasts an unreasonable period. Effectiveness was not in issue. Confirms that Member States' procedural autonomy over excess VAT refunds is bounded by equivalence. Relevant to businesses in Romania and elsewhere disputing VAT assessments while running repayment positions, and to advisers structuring guarantees pending appeal.

C-598/20 Pilsētas zemes dienests

Order · 1 December 2021 · Latvia

Compulsory ground leases outside the exemption for the letting of immovable property

Ruling by reasoned order, the Court held that those provisions do not preclude such legislation. Article 135(2) allows Member States to apply further exclusions to the scope of the exemption in Article 135(1)(l), and the Court has consistently read that as conferring a broad discretion, exercisable by a general rule. Latvia had laid down precisely such a general rule, so the exclusion was within the discretion the directive confers. There was no need to answer the second question. A useful reminder that the letting exemption is not a floor.

C-358/20 Promexor Trade

Judgment · 18 November 2021

Deregistration for VAT, continued trading, and the right to deduct that follows

The Court held that those provisions and principles do not preclude such national legislation, where the identification has been revoked because no taxable transactions were indicated in the returns filed for six consecutive months and the taxable person continues its activities notwithstanding the revocation, provided that the taxable person is able to re-register for VAT purposes and to deduct the input VAT paid. The Court added that the fact that the director of the taxable person is a partner in another company which is the subject of insolvency proceedings cannot, in itself, be relied on to refuse systematically the re-registration of that taxable person for VAT purposes. Identification is a formal requirement and not a substantive condition of the right to deduct, and the judgment keeps that distinction workable by making the compatibility of the national regime conditional on a real route back to registration.

C-388/18 B (Turnover of a dealer in second-hand vehicles)

Judgment · 29 July 2019 · Germany

Turnover threshold for small enterprises where the margin scheme applies

Article 288 precludes national legislation or practice calculating the reference turnover using only the profit margin. The word "taxed" qualifies the supplies, not their value, so it is enough that the supplies are taxed, however they are taxed. Turnover must be based on all amounts (excluding VAT) received or to be received. The small enterprise scheme and the margin scheme are autonomous and independent. Neither imports concepts from the other. For dealers in second-hand goods, works of art, collectors' items and antiques the small enterprise threshold is measured on gross receipts, not on margin.

C-265/18 Jarmuškienė

Judgment · 2 May 2019 · Lithuania

Small enterprise threshold and a single supply of two properties

Where a supply to the same purchaser comprises two items of immovable property linked by their nature and covered by a single contract of sale, and the turnover limit is exceeded, VAT is due on the value of the entire supply, even though one item alone would not have breached the limit. Separately stated prices do not permit splitting. There is a single supply under Article 14(1) and dividing it would be artificial. The Court expressly left open the treatment of earlier transactions. Relevant to advisers dealing with property developers and occasional builders operating under national small enterprise exemptions.

C-201/18 Mydibel

Judgment · 27 March 2019 · Belgium

Adjustment of input tax on a sale and lease back of buildings

Subject to the national court's verification of the facts and national law, no adjustment is required. Creating an emphyteutic right not subject to VAT is not in itself a change in the factors determining the deduction, and where the emphyteutic right and the leaseback are so closely linked as to form a single transaction, no supply of goods occurs because the institutions cannot dispose of the buildings as owner. Had adjustment been due, it would nevertheless respect neutrality and equal treatment. Relevant to businesses using sale and lease back of real estate as a financing tool, and to their lenders and lessors.

C-434/17 Human Operator

Judgment · 13 February 2019 · Hungary

Retroactive application of a derogation authorising reverse charge

A Member State may not apply the derogating measure before the Council decision has been notified to it. Under Article 297(2) TFEU the decision took effect on notification, and legal certainty precludes retroactivity absent an express provision. The Member State's stated wish, and the Commission's awareness that it had already begun applying the measure, are irrelevant. For the earlier period the general rule in Article 193 applies, is unconditional and sufficiently precise, and can be relied on directly. The suppliers, not the recipients, were liable. Relevant to businesses in Member States that jump the gun on Article 395 derogations, particularly labour supply, staffing and construction sectors.

C-552/17 Alpenchalets Resorts

Judgment · 19 December 2018 · Germany

Accommodation-only supplies under the travel agents' margin scheme

Accommodation-only supplies bought in from other taxable persons are covered by the margin scheme, and so are such supplies combined with additional ancillary services, whatever the importance of those extras. Each is a single service under Article 307. The single supply analysis from ordinary VAT rules does not apply here. The reduced rate cannot apply, because the single travel agent service is not listed in Annex III. The Court assumed, subject to national verification, that the property owners were taxable persons. Relevant to holiday letting intermediaries, villa and chalet agencies, online accommodation resellers and tour operators buying rooms in and reselling in their own name.

Related topics

Right of deduction · Rules governing exercise of the right of deduction · Fiscal neutrality · Origin and scope of right of deduction · Persons liable for payment of VAT · Refund of VAT · Adjustment of deductions · Special scheme for small enterprises · Place of an intra-Community acquisition of goods · Triangular transaction