Obligation to provide for criminal penalties EU VAT case law

3 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2023 to 2026.

Search within this topic The cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

Article 2 of Directive 2006/112/EC Subject matter and scope · 1 of these cases
Article 12 of Directive 2006/112/EC Taxable persons · 1 of these cases
Article 273 of Directive 2006/112/EC Obligations of taxable persons and certain non-taxable persons · 1 of these cases

The 3 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-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.