VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Own resources of the European Union EU VAT case law

9 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2013 to 2026.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 9 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-72/24 Keladis I and Keladis II

Judgment · 29 January 2026 · Greece

Statistical "lowest acceptable price" as basis for import VAT valuation

Threshold prices are usable, but only as a last resort under the fall-back method (Article 31(1) CCC, Article 74(3) UCC), not under the deductive method, and only if the operator was given the opportunity to justify the lower declared prices. Otherwise the practice becomes a prohibited system of minimum values. The underlying imports must be at or about the same time, the 90 day period applying by analogy with reasonable flexibility. Tariff grouping requested by the declarant continues to apply on revaluation. Member States may make the deemed owner liable for import VAT if national law says so explicitly and unequivocally. Relevant to importers of low-value consumer goods, particularly textiles and clothing, and to advisers handling undervaluation audits.

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-227/21 HA.EN.

Judgment · 15 September 2022 · Lithuania

Deduction where the vendor is insolvent and cannot pay the output VAT

Article 168(a), read with fiscal neutrality, precludes such a practice. Mere failure to pay duly declared VAT is not fraud, so the purchaser cannot be treated as knowingly participating in fraud, nor is there abuse, since a secured creditor taking over the property after a failed auction pursues debt recovery, not a tax advantage. The Court distinguished ALTI is that a purchaser in a court supervised compulsory sale is not in the position of a contractual counterparty of the principal VAT debtor. Member States may instead use the Article 199(1)(g) reverse charge. Purchasers of real estate in enforcement and insolvency sales, and secured creditors taking assets in satisfaction of debt, keep their deduction even where the vendor's inability to pay is obvious. Relevant to distressed debt, restructuring and property advisers.

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-310/16 Dzivev and Others

Judgment · 17 January 2019 · Bulgaria

Unlawfully authorised telephone intercepts in VAT fraud prosecutions

The effectiveness principle does not oblige a national court to set aside such an exclusionary rule. Interception authorised by a court lacking jurisdiction is not "in accordance with the law" for Article 52(1) of the Charter and interferes unlawfully with Article 7 privacy rights, so the national rule reflects EU requirements rather than obstructing them. Neither the unclear drafting of the jurisdiction transfer provision nor the fact that the evidence is decisive for one defendant alters that conclusion. A limit on the Taricco and Kolev line.

C-574/15 Scialdone

Judgment · 2 May 2018 · Italy

Criminal thresholds for late payment of declared VAT

The Grand Chamber held EU law does not preclude the higher VAT threshold. Failure to pay correctly declared VAT is not fraud under Article 325(1) TFEU or the PFI Convention, so the EUR 50 000 figure is irrelevant. It is an "illegal activity" requiring only effective and dissuasive penalties, which the 30% fine plus interest supplies. Non-remittance of withholding tax is not an infringement of similar nature and importance, as its constituent elements differ and certification makes it harder to detect, so equivalence permits different thresholds. Confirms that late or non-payment of declared VAT sits in a different category from VAT fraud. Relevant to advisers handling Italian and other national criminal tax exposure for directors, and to arguments that penalties on the company alone are inadequate.

C-105/14 Taricco and Others

Judgment · 8 September 2015 · Italy

Criminal limitation periods and the duty to punish serious VAT fraud

Such a limitation rule is liable to breach Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU if it prevents effective and dissuasive penalties in a significant number of serious VAT fraud cases, or if comparable domestic financial interests enjoy longer periods. That assessment is for the national court. Where it so finds, it must disapply the national provisions, which does not offend Article 49 of the Charter since the offence and penalty existed at the time. Articles 101, 107 and 119 TFEU are not applicable. VAT collection is treated as an EU own resources matter, so national procedural and criminal law that neutralises enforcement can be set aside by the trial judge directly under primary law, without waiting for legislative repeal.

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.

Related topics

Protection of the European Union’s financial interests · Customs value · Direct effect · Effectiveness · Persons liable for payment of VAT · Customs union · Customs Code · Importation of goods · Principles of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties · Obligation to provide for criminal penalties