VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Limitation period EU VAT case law

28 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 1998 to 2026.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 28 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-321/25 Gidzhinov

Judgment · 15 October 2026 · Bulgaria

A 15-year absolute limitation period for serious VAT fraud and heavier penalties for organised crime groups

The Court holds that Article 325 TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PIF Convention do not preclude national legislation under which proceedings for serious fraud against the financial interests of the Union are time-barred if no final conviction is handed down within 15 years of the offence, whatever the interruptions, suspensions or unforeseeable events, provided that the period does not create a systemic risk of impunity in that Member State. Fraud of more than EUR 4 million is serious, and forming a criminal association to commit VAT offences is itself fraud against the Union's financial interests, as held in Taricco. Fifteen years in principle leaves enough time for a final judgment at three levels, and changes in the composition of a panel in isolated cases do not show a systemic risk. On the second question, the Framework Decision lays down minimum penalties only, so it does not prevent a Member State from punishing participation in an organised crime group more severely than the offences it aims at or with a maximum above five years, and ranges of 5 to 15 and 3 to 10 years are not disproportionate. The judgment applies the Lin line to an absolute limitation period that cannot be interrupted or suspended, and accepts it when it is long enough. It reaches criminal proceedings for large VAT fraud schemes and the national limitation rules that govern them.

C-280/25 Lin II

Judgment · 16 July 2026 · Romania

Serious VAT fraud above EUR 50 000 and the limits of Lin on limitation periods already found to have expired

The Grand Chamber holds that, where national law sets no threshold, a fraud against the financial interests of the Union must be classified as serious once it concerns a total amount greater than EUR 50 000, even if the damage to the Union budget itself is lower. On the second question, Article 325(1) TFEU and Article 2(1) of the PIF Convention, read with the Charter, do not require a final court decision finding that the limitation period has expired under Decision No 67/2022 to be called into question. Outside that scenario the Romanian courts must not apply that national standard in proceedings for serious fraud against the Union's financial interests, even though the constitutional principle forbids combining provisions of successive criminal laws, national law contains no criteria for identifying a systemic risk of impunity, and the limitation period would have expired before Lin if calculated under that standard.

C-521/24 Aptiv Services Hungary

Judgment · 12 March 2026 · Hungary

Late receipt of invoices and the period for deducting acquisition VAT

The Court held that those provisions preclude such national rules and practice. Where the substantive conditions are met and the invoices, a formal condition, arrived only later, the two cumulative conditions for exercise are satisfied in the period of receipt, and confining the taxable person to a self-correction that has already expired makes the right practically impossible or excessively difficult. The qualification is that the taxable person must have acted in good faith, with no fraud established, and within the applicable limitation period. Relevant to any business making intra-Community acquisitions where supplier invoices arrive years late, and to groups with decentralised invoice capture.

C-640/23 Greentech

Judgment · 13 March 2025 · Romania

Deduction refused after reclassification as a transfer of a going concern

Deduction may be refused. The right to deduct exists only for tax actually due, so where the transaction is definitively outside the scope of VAT there is nothing to deduct, and the absence of any risk of revenue loss does not change that. The qualification is that a claim for reimbursement is distinct from a deduction claim. Where recovery from the seller is impossible or excessively difficult, neutrality and effectiveness require the buyer to be able to apply directly to the tax authorities for repayment. Where an acquisition is recharacterised as a transfer of a going concern, the point is not a deduction dispute but a direct repayment claim against the tax authorities, once recovery from the seller is time-barred or otherwise blocked. Relevant to asset deals and intra-group transfers of business assets, and to Member States whose rules rely solely on invoice correction plus a civil claim.

C-429/23 NARE-BG

Judgment · 12 September 2024 · Bulgaria

Time limit for deducting pre-registration input VAT

Those provisions and principles do not preclude the refusal. A 12-month limitation period running from VAT registration is compatible. Direct taxes and VAT are fundamentally different in nature and not comparable for equivalence purposes, so extending direct tax deadlines only was permissible, and the state of emergency covered only part of the deduction window. The adjustment mechanism in Articles 184 and 185 cannot create a right of deduction that has already been lost by lapse of time, and neutrality does not override that. Confirms that pandemic-era relief for direct taxes gives no read-across to VAT deduction deadlines, and that a correcting return filed out of time cannot revive a forfeited deduction. Relevant to newly registered businesses, particularly property developers and others incurring substantial pre-registration input tax, which must claim within the domestic window.

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-314/22 Consortium Remi Group

Judgment · 29 February 2024 · Bulgaria

Bad debt relief, limitation periods, invoice correction and interest

A limitation period is permissible, penalising the insufficiently diligent, but it may only start when the taxable person could, acting diligently, assert the right to reduction. Absent national rules that starting point must be identifiable with reasonable probability. Requiring prior invoice correction and prior notice to the debtor is precluded where, absent specific national provisions, compliance is impossible in time for reasons beyond the taxable person's control. Refund carries default interest, running from when the reduction is claimed in the current period's return. Relevant wherever a Member State has used the Article 90(2) derogation but denies relief outright.

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-107/23 PPU Lin

Judgment · 24 July 2023

Limitation periods for VAT fraud, and the limits of a national standard of protection

The Court held that those provisions do not require the national courts to disapply case law of that kind where it flows from the principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law, as protected under national law in its requirements of foreseeability and precision, even though a considerable number of cases of serious fraud affecting the Union's financial interests will be discontinued as time-barred. Those provisions do, however, require the courts to disapply a national standard of protection relating to the retroactive application of the more lenient criminal law which permits the interruption of limitation to be called into question in such cases, including on appeals against final judgments. The principle of primacy precludes national legislation or practice binding ordinary courts to the decisions of the constitutional and supreme courts, at the risk of disciplinary liability, where they consider that case law contrary to directly effective EU law. The case sits at the junction between the duty to counter fraud affecting VAT-based own resources and the national constitutional guarantees surrounding criminal liability.

C-615/21 Napfény-Toll

Judgment · 13 July 2023 · Hungary

Suspension of the assessment limitation period during judicial review

Neither principle precludes such legislation or practice, even where repetition results from the authority's failure to comply with binding judicial guidance. Regulation No 2988/95 does not apply, as VAT is not collected directly on behalf of the European Union. Limitation rules remain for Member States. The qualification is that the principle of sound administration and Article 47 of the Charter require a reasonable overall duration, but excessive length justifies annulment only where it actually impaired the taxpayer's ability to defend itself, which will be exceptional. Taxpayers in Member States with open-ended suspension rules cannot rely on legal certainty alone to defeat assessments issued many years after the periods concerned, even where the delay is the authority's fault. Relevant to advisers handling long-running Hungarian deduction and fraud disputes, and to anyone assuming Regulation No 2988/95 caps VAT limitation periods.

C-194/21 Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Time-barring of the right to deduct)

Judgment · 7 July 2022 · Netherlands

Adjustment cannot revive a time-barred right of deduction

Articles 184 and 185 do not preclude refusal. The adjustment mechanism presupposes an existing right of deduction and cannot itself create one. Where the right has been lost through expiry of a national limitation period, adjustment is unavailable, whether or not first use differs from intended use. Fiscal neutrality is a principle of interpretation only and yields to legal certainty. Absence of fraud, abuse or revenue loss does not permit circumvention of the limitation period. Confirms that Articles 184 to 186 are not a second window for deductions missed at the outset.

C-396/20 CHEP Equipment Pooling

Judgment · 21 October 2021 · Hungary

Duty to invite correction of a cross-border VAT refund application

Article 20(1), read with fiscal neutrality and good administration, precludes the refund State, where it is certain (if need be from additional information supplied) that the input VAT actually paid per the attached invoice exceeds the amount claimed, from refunding only the lower claimed amount without first diligently inviting the taxable person to rectify the application. A corrected application is deemed lodged on the date of the original. No further information request is required where the information already held is genuinely sufficient. Refund authorities can no longer treat the figure in the claim as an absolute ceiling where the invoices plainly show more, provided the error is easily recognisable and the correct amount can be established with certainty. Relevant to any business making Directive 2008/9 claims, particularly groups with high invoice volumes, and to advisers handling refused or partially refused refunds.

C-45/20 Finanzamt N and Finanzamt G (Communication of the allocation decision)

Judgment · 14 October 2021 · Germany

Deadline for communicating the allocation of mixed-use assets to business assets

The allocation decision itself is a substantive condition. Communicating it is only formal. Nevertheless, a Member State may refuse deduction where, by expiry of the statutory annual return deadline, the authority has not been put in a position to establish allocation by an express decision or sufficient evidence, unless the arrangements for exercising the option breach proportionality. Intention may be shown implicitly, so the national court must weigh less onerous penalties such as administrative fines against outright refusal. Time limits for signalling allocation of mixed-use capital goods survive, but only subject to a proportionality review that national courts must actually carry out.

C-507/20 FGSZ

Order · 3 March 2021 · Hungary

When the limitation period for bad debt relief starts to run

By reasoned order under Article 99, the Court held that where a Member State imposes a limitation period for asserting the right to reduce the taxable amount in respect of a definitively irrecoverable debt, that period must run from the date the debt became definitively irrecoverable, not from the date performance of the payment obligation was originally due. A diligent taxable person, here applying six days after the liquidator's finding, and absent abuse, cannot be deprived of the reduction. Article 90(1) has direct effect.

C-661/18 CTT - Correios de Portugal

Judgment · 30 April 2020 · Portugal

Changing the input tax apportionment method after the final pro rata is fixed

A blanket national prohibition on changing the deduction method after the final proportion has been fixed is compatible with Article 173(2)(c). But Articles 184 to 186 preclude refusing correction where the Member State allows the actual use method, the taxable person was unaware and acting in good faith when choosing its method that a supply treated as exempt was taxable, the general national limitation period has not expired, and the change gives a more precise measure of deductible VAT. Mixed businesses whose output VAT treatment is retrospectively revised, whether by ruling, legislative change or liberalisation, can reopen the apportionment method itself and not merely recompute the turnover pro rata. Relevant to postal, financial, insurance, healthcare and public bodies sectors, and to anyone relying on an outdated binding ruling.

C-258/19 EUROVIA

Judgment · 30 April 2020 · Hungary

Jurisdiction over deduction on pre-accession supplies

The Court declined jurisdiction. The supply took place on 16-11-1998, before Hungary's accession on 01-05-2004, so the chargeable event occurred and the tax became chargeable pre-accession, and the right to deduct has a direct substantive and temporal link to that chargeability. That the exact price was fixed by judgment, paid and invoiced only after accession was not enough. Those events were inextricably linked to a pre-accession supply. No continuous supply or Article 66 derogation was in point. A jurisdictional ruling, not a substantive one, so it settles nothing about when limitation runs where an invoice is delayed by litigation over the price.

C-13/18 Sole-Mizo and Dalmandi Mezőgazdasági

Judgment · 23 April 2020 · Hungary

Interest on excess deductible VAT withheld in breach of EU law

The base rate approach fails effectiveness and fiscal neutrality where that rate is below what a taxable person other than a credit institution would pay to borrow the same amount, and where interest stops at the end of the reporting period with nothing to compensate for monetary erosion until actual payment. However, a five-year limitation period running from entry into force of the corrective legislation is compatible, as is requiring a specific request for default interest, which then runs only from expiry of the 30 or 45 day processing deadline. Businesses holding historic interest claims against Member States for VAT withheld contrary EU law now have a benchmark. Relevant to Hungarian claims and to comparable interest disputes elsewhere.

C-133/18 Sea Chefs Cruise Services

Judgment · 2 May 2019 · France

Nature of the one-month deadline for additional information in cross-border refund claims

The one-month period is not a limitation period. Failure to reply, or a late reply, does not cause the applicant to lose the right to regularise the refund claim by producing the supporting information directly before the national court. The Court contrasted Article 15(1), which uses "at the latest" and is a limitation period, and noted that the information may be sought from third parties or another Member State's authorities, and that Article 26 denies default interest in such cases. Refusals of Directive 2008/9 refunds based solely on a missed one-month information deadline are open to challenge, and evidence can be filed for the first time before the national court, subject to national appeal forms and time limits under Article 23(2). Relevant to non-established claimants, particularly groups with recurring foreign VAT costs, and to advisers handling portal refund claims in Member States taking a strict line.

C-672/17 Tratave

Judgment · 6 December 2018 · Portugal

Prior notice to the debtor as a condition for reducing the taxable amount

The Court held that neutrality and Articles 90 and 273 do not preclude such a prior notification requirement. It falls within the Member States' discretion over formalities, contributes to correct collection, prevention of evasion and elimination of the risk of revenue loss, and allows the State to act in time in the insolvency proceedings. The requirement is subject to not being excessively onerous, which the referring court must verify. No particular form is prescribed. The second question was not answered. On a claim for bad debt relief the domestic notification formalities operate as substantive preconditions rather than administrative afterthoughts, and they have to be evidenced contemporaneously.

C-533/16 Volkswagen

Judgment · 21 March 2018 · Slovakia

Start of the limitation period for refunds where VAT is invoiced years late

EU law precludes a Member State from refusing a refund on the ground that a limitation period running from the date of supply had expired, where the VAT was charged to and paid by the taxable person only several years after the supply. The right arises when the tax becomes chargeable but is exercisable only once an invoice is held. The qualification is that this applies where the claimant showed no lack of diligence and there was no abuse, fraudulent collusion or risk of non-payment. Relevant to non-established businesses making Directive 2008/9 claims and to any taxable person receiving late corrective invoices after a supplier reclassifies an exempt transaction as taxable.

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-332/15 Astone

Judgment · 28 July 2016 · Italy

Deduction refused where formal obligations are fraudulently ignored

The Directive precludes neither of the two national rules. A limitation period is compatible provided the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are respected. A two year period does not in itself make deduction impossible or excessively difficult. Formal breaches normally cannot defeat deduction where the substantive conditions are met, but wholesale non-compliance (no return, no accounts, no registration, no payment) may itself constitute the simplest form of evasion, and deduction may then be refused. Whether fraud is established is for the national court, on objective evidence. Confirms that the Ecotrade line protecting substance over form has a limit. Relevant to advisers handling Italian audits and criminal thresholds, and generally to disputes where late or unrecorded purchase invoices are produced retrospectively.

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.

C-472/08 Alstom Power Hydro

Judgment · 21 January 2010 · Latvia

Three-year time limit for claiming a VAT refund

Article 18(4) does not preclude such a rule. Silence in the provision does not mean the right to repayment can be exercised without temporal limit. Unlimited claims would offend legal certainty. In the absence of Union rules, national procedural conditions apply subject to equivalence and effectiveness, and a three-year period is reasonable: it normally allows a reasonably diligent taxable person to assert its rights, a fortiori since a two-year limit has already been accepted for deduction. Confirms that Member States may cap refund claims for excess input VAT by a domestic limitation period, and that three years is comfortably within tolerance.

C-483/08 Régie communale autonome du stade Luc Varenne

Order · 9 July 2009 · Belgium

Limitation for recovering wrongly deducted VAT may run from the first claim

The Court holds that Article 10 does not preclude such a rule. That provision defines the chargeable event and the chargeability of the tax. It does not govern limitation periods for the recovery of tax wrongly deducted, which in the absence of EU rules fall within the procedural autonomy of the Member States, subject to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. Useful whenever a client argues that a national recovery period runs from an event other than the deduction claim.

C-95/07 Ecotrade

Judgment · 8 May 2008 · Italy

Limitation periods and formal breaches under the reverse charge

A limitation period for deduction is permissible provided the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are respected. Effectiveness is not breached merely because the authorities have longer to recover unpaid VAT, the two situations not being comparable. However, denying deduction as a penalty for breach of national formalities and of accounting and declaration obligations under the reverse charge is disproportionate where the substantive conditions are met. A proportionate fine is the appropriate sanction. Confirms that fiscal neutrality protects reverse charge deduction where the tax authority has the data needed to establish liability, so self-billing and dual register failures cannot be met with a net VAT charge plus loss of input tax. Relevant to businesses receiving cross-border services and to advisers handling Italian and other national assessments where limitation periods are asymmetric.

C-85/97 SFI v Belgian State

Judgment · 19 November 1998 · Belgium

Limitation period start date and foreign VAT in the taxable amount of a benefit in kind

The Sixth Directive contains no rule on when the limitation period for recovery starts, so the point is for national law. Fixing it at the first return date after registration is compatible with Articles 4 and 10, and the different treatment of the authorities and the taxable person does not breach equality because the authorities lack the information until the return. However, the First and Sixth Directives preclude including foreign VAT in the taxable amount where domestic VAT would have been excluded. No ruling on Article 95 was needed. Limitation and time bar arguments built on the chargeable event will not succeed. Relevant to groups leasing vehicles cross border and to advisers reviewing Belgian style normal value rules for employee benefits.

Related topics

Right of deduction · Fiscal neutrality · Refund of VAT · Rules governing exercise of the right of deduction · Effectiveness · Protection of the European Union’s financial interests · Obligation to provide for criminal penalties · Adjustment of deductions · Refusal of the right to deduct · Origin and scope of right of deduction