Ne bis in idem principle EU VAT case law

4 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2013 to 2021.

Search within this topic The cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

Article 2 of Directive 2006/112/EC Subject matter and scope · 4 of these cases
Article 273 of Directive 2006/112/EC Obligations of taxable persons and certain non-taxable persons · 4 of these cases
Article 63 of Directive 2006/112/EC Supply of goods or services · 1 of these cases
Article 50 of Directive 2006/112/EC Particular provisions · 1 of these cases
Article 62 of Directive 2006/112/EC Chargeable event and chargeability of vat · 1 of these cases
Article 22 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC Obligations of persons liable for payment · 1 of these cases
Article 250 of Directive 2006/112/EC Returns · 1 of these cases
Article 2 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC 1 of these cases

The 4 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-81/20 Mitliv Exim

Order · 22 June 2021 · Romania

A provisional payment towards a real VAT debt earns no interest

Ruling by order, the Court held that it cannot. Once taxable transactions have taken place and the VAT on them has become chargeable, the tax debt exists. What matters is the occurrence of the chargeable event, not the later confirmation of the amount by an administrative or judicial decision. A payment made to honour that debt is therefore not undue and does not give rise to interest for the taxpayer. The symmetrical counterpart to the refund-interest cases.

C-524/15 Menci

Judgment · 20 March 2018 · Italy

Criminal proceedings for unpaid VAT after a final administrative penalty are allowed under strict conditions

The Court holds that Article 50 of the Charter does not preclude such legislation, even where the administrative penalty is criminal in nature, provided three conditions are met. The legislation must pursue an objective of general interest such as combating VAT offences, with proceedings and penalties pursuing additional objectives, it must contain rules of coordination limiting the extra burden to what is strictly necessary, and it must ensure that the severity of all the penalties together remains limited to what the seriousness of the offence requires. It is for the national court to check that the actual burden on the person is not excessive. This is the Grand Chamber judgment that sets the test for duplicating tax and criminal penalties in VAT.

C-217/15 Orsi and Baldetti

Judgment · 5 April 2017 · Italy

No breach of ne bis in idem where the tax penalty fell on the company and the criminal case on its representative

The Court holds that Article 50 of the Charter does not preclude national legislation allowing criminal proceedings for non-payment of VAT after a definitive tax penalty for the same act or omission, where that penalty was imposed on a company with legal personality while the criminal proceedings are brought against a natural person. The principle presupposes that the same person is the subject of the penalties or proceedings, and that condition is not met in such a case. The decisive point is the identity of the person, not of the facts.

C-617/10 Åkerberg Fransson

Judgment · 26 February 2013

When enforcing VAT brings a national penalty regime within the Charter

The Court held that the Charter applies. Tax penalties and criminal proceedings for false VAT declarations are an implementation of EU law, because Articles 2, 250(1) and 273 of the VAT Directive and Article 325 TFEU oblige Member States to take all measures to ensure collection of VAT in full and to counter fraud, and VAT revenue forms part of the Union's own resources. It is irrelevant that the national rules were not adopted to transpose the directive. On the merits, Article 50 does not preclude successive tax and criminal penalties for the same acts provided the first penalty is not criminal in nature, which is for the national court to determine. EU law does not govern the relations between the Convention and national legal systems. EU law precludes a judicial practice conditioning the duty to disapply a provision contrary to the Charter on the infringement being clear from the Charter's text or case law. The judgment fixes the point at which a national penalty regime enters the field of application of the Charter in tax matters.