Obligation of good faith EU VAT case law

6 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2019 to 2024.

Search within this topic The cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

Article 135 of Directive 2006/112/EC Exemptions for other activities · 2 of these cases
Article 132 of Directive 2006/112/EC Exemptions for certain activities in the public interest · 2 of these cases
Article 2 of Directive 2006/112/EC Subject matter and scope · 1 of these cases
Article 85 of Directive 2006/112/EC Importation of goods · 1 of these cases
Article 143 of Directive 2006/112/EC Exemptions on importation · 1 of these cases
Article 83 of Directive 2006/112/EC Intra-Community acquisition of goods · 1 of these cases
Article 138 of Directive 2006/112/EC Exemptions related to the supply of goods · 1 of these cases
Article 86 of Directive 2006/112/EC Importation of goods · 1 of these cases

The 6 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-741/22 Casino de Spa and Others

Judgment · 12 September 2024 · Belgium

VAT exemption for online lotteries but not other online gambling

Differentiated treatment is permissible provided objective differences (chance alone determining winners, the waiting period, stakes and odds, cultural factors) considerably influence the average consumer's choice. The identity, legal form, licence category, regulatory regime and legislative objectives of providers are irrelevant. National courts must disapply provisions incompatible with Article 135(1)(i), a constitutional court's maintenance of effects being irrelevant. Tax wrongly levied is refundable unless refund unjustly enriches the taxable person. No damages equivalent to the VAT paid on unlawful State aid grounds. Relevant to gambling operators in Member States that split the exemption by game type.

C-73/23 Chaudfontaine Loisirs

Judgment · 12 September 2024 · Belgium

VAT exemption for online gambling and the limits of national discretion

Differentiating between online non-lottery gambling and lotteries or offline gambling is compatible with Article 135(1)(i) and neutrality, provided the objective differences are liable to have a considerable influence on the average consumer's choice. That is for the national court to verify. Article 135(1)(i) has direct effect, so a constitutional court's decision to maintain the effects of annulled provisions is irrelevant and they must be disapplied. Refund of VAT levied in breach is due, unless it would unjustly enrich the taxable person. Operators of online casino and betting products in Member States that tax electronic gambling while exempting lotteries and land based play now have a harder neutrality argument. Relevant to gambling advisers and to anyone litigating retrospective effects of annulled tax legislation.

C-355/22 Osteopathie Van Hauwermeiren

Judgment · 5 October 2023 · Belgium

Maintaining the effects of national law incompatible with the VAT Directive

A national court may not maintain those effects. Only the Court of Justice may, exceptionally and in the judgment interpreting the rule itself, suspend the ousting effect of EU law. Administrative and practical difficulties in refunding wrongly collected VAT to customers, including their number or absence of accounting records, are not overriding considerations of legal certainty. The first question, on the procedural conditions for such a national power, did not need answering. Taxable persons who charged VAT under national exemption rules later found contrary to Article 132 can pursue refunds for periods covered by a national temporal limitation, and ordinary courts must disregard a constitutional court ruling that shields those periods.

C-213/19 Commission v United Kingdom (Action to counter undervaluation fraud)

Judgment · 8 March 2022 · United Kingdom

Undervalued imports, customs value, import VAT and own resources liability

For customs procedure 40 imports, an undeclared true customs value necessarily distorts the import VAT taxable amount, so Articles 2(1)(d) and 85 to 87 were breached. For procedure 42, there is no link between customs value and the taxable amount, which rests on the purchase price invoiced in the Member State of destination. Liability for uncollected VAT lies there, not with the Member State of importation. The claim for quantified VAT own resources losses failed. Undervaluation does not necessarily reduce net VAT receipts, since importers and traders recover input tax. Confirms that customs valuation failings automatically infect the import VAT base under Article 85, so a revaluation carries a parallel import VAT assessment.

C-424/19 UR (Liability of lawyers to VAT)

Judgment · 16 July 2020 · Romania

Lawyers as taxable persons and the limits of res judicata

A person practising the profession of lawyer carries on an economic activity as a liberal profession and is a taxable person under Article 9(1). EU law precludes applying res judicata where the later dispute concerns a different tax period and a different subject matter and where applying the principle would stop the national court giving effect to the EU VAT rules. Finality is otherwise respected because EU law does not generally require a court to reopen definitive judgments. Confirms that lawyers and other liberal professions are within the VAT net.

C-597/17 Belgisch Syndicaat van Chiropraxie and Others

Judgment · 27 June 2019 · Belgium

Medical exemption for unregulated professions and reduced rates for aesthetic treatments

The exemption is not restricted to professions regulated by national law. Member States define the qualifying professions but must ensure adequate quality of care and respect fiscal neutrality, and other means of verifying qualifications may exist. Member States may apply the reduced rate selectively within Annex III, and therapeutic and purely aesthetic uses are not similar supplies, so the differentiation is permissible. The national court may not maintain the effects of the annulled provisions, whether for legal certainty or to avoid reverting to an earlier non-compliant regime. Providers of therapeutic care outside regulated professions, chiropractors, osteopaths and comparable practitioners, can rely on Article 132(1)(c) where their qualifications and quality of care are verifiable and their services compete with exempt care.