Principles of neutrality, proportionality and effectiveness 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 2023 to 2026.

Search within this topic The cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

Article 168 of Directive 2006/112/EC Origin and scope of right of deduction · 1 of these cases
Article 178 of Directive 2006/112/EC Rules governing exercise of the right of deduction · 1 of these cases
Article 179 of Directive 2006/112/EC Rules governing exercise of the right of deduction · 1 of these cases
Article 2 of Directive 2008/9/EC 1 of these cases
Article 15 of Directive 2008/9/EC 1 of these cases
Article 23 of Directive 2008/9/EC 1 of these cases
Article 90 of Directive 2006/112/EC Taxable amount · 1 of these cases
Article 138 of Directive 2006/112/EC Exemptions related to the supply of goods · 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-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-527/24 Harry et Associés

Judgment · 12 March 2026 · Italy

Corrupted electronic refund application and access to a court

The Court held that those provisions preclude such national law. Where an application was transmitted in accordance with Directive 2008/9 and duly received by both administrations, and no element suggests the required information was missing, a technical fault not attributable to the taxable person cannot mean no application was introduced. Good administration required the refund authority to flag the fault and request a clean file under Article 20(1). Inaction must be challengeable before a court. Res judicata cannot perpetuate that error in a dispute with a different object, subject to the referring court's verification. Relevant to any business claiming cross-border VAT refunds through the portal procedure, and to advisers handling stalled claims.

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-664/21 NEC PLUS ULTRA COSMETICS

Judgment · 2 March 2023 · Slovenia

Time limits for producing proof of an intra-Community supply

They do not preclude such legislation, provided the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are respected. The Court stressed the qualification. Where the evidence is offered before any assessment notice has been adopted, a refusal to take it into account must rest on particular circumstances, for instance an unjustified delay or a loss of tax revenue. Blanket exclusion at that early stage, ignoring the taxpayer's explanations, is hard to reconcile with proportionality and neutrality. The national court must assess this. National evidential cut-offs in audit procedures survive, but they cannot be applied mechanically.