Protection of the European Union’s financial interests 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 2018 to 2026.

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 · 3 of these cases
Article 250 of Directive 2006/112/EC Returns · 2 of these cases
Article 206 of Directive 2006/112/EC Payment arrangements · 2 of these cases
Article 12 of Directive 2006/112/EC Taxable persons · 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

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-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.

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.