VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Refund of excess VAT 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 2001 to 2024.

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-680/23 Modexel

Judgment · 5 December 2024 · Portugal

Carrying forward excess VAT after cessation and resumption of activity

Article 183 does not preclude such legislation. Cessation of economic activity ends taxable person status, so there is no "following period" to which the excess can be carried. On resumption the activity is new. Member States may therefore confine recovery to a refund claim within 12 months of cessation, provided the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are respected. The Court noted a 12 month period (and a fortiori four years) does not appear to make recovery impossible or excessively difficult. A business deregistering with a VAT credit has to claim the refund within the national time limit.

C-426/22 SOLE-MiZo

Order · 20 June 2023 · Hungary

Interest on wrongly withheld VAT credits must compensate for the passage of time

The Court holds that they do preclude that practice, in so far as it is liable to deprive the taxable person of adequate compensation for the loss caused by not having the sums available, and fails to offset the economic burden of the wrongly withheld tax. The interest must cover the whole period during which the taxable person was deprived of the money, up to actual payment. The third instalment of the Hungarian interest saga, after Delphi Hungary and the first Sole Mizo judgment.

C-487/20 Philips Orăştie

Judgment · 10 February 2022 · Romania

Bank guarantees and the refund of disputed VAT, the principle of equivalence

Articles 179 and 183, together with the principle of equivalence, preclude national procedural rules governing VAT refund claims based on breach of the common VAT system that are less favourable than those applicable to comparable claims founded on domestic law concerning other taxes and duties. The Court left it to the referring court to identify genuinely comparable domestic actions and to verify that the VAT rules are in fact less favourable, and likewise to assess whether the financial burden lasts an unreasonable period. Effectiveness was not in issue. Confirms that Member States' procedural autonomy over excess VAT refunds is bounded by equivalence. Relevant to businesses in Romania and elsewhere disputing VAT assessments while running repayment positions, and to advisers structuring guarantees pending appeal.

C-844/19 technoRent International and Others

Judgment · 12 May 2021 · Austria

Default interest on late VAT refunds where national law is silent

Articles 90(1) and 183, read with fiscal neutrality, require interest where either type of refund is not made within a reasonable period. A refund following a reduction of the taxable amount is treated exactly like excess input VAT. Article 27(2) of Directive 2008/9 is a catch-all for non-established claimants and cannot be applied by analogy outside its scope. The conditions (rate, starting point) remain for national law, and the referring court must interpret domestic law in conformity, short of contra legem. Silence in national law is no answer to an interest claim.

C-120/15 Kovozber

Order · 21 October 2015 · Slovakia

Interest on a delayed VAT refund cannot wait for the tax inspection to end

Ruling by reasoned order under Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court held that Article 183 does preclude such legislation. Member States retain procedural autonomy over the arrangements for repayment, but those arrangements must not make the taxable person bear, even in part, the financial burden of the tax. Where repayment is not made within a reasonable period, the losses caused by the unavailability of the sums must be compensated by default interest, and a rule tying the start of interest to the end of an inspection defeats that requirement. Part of the settled line running through Enel Maritsa Iztok, Delphi Hungary and Rafinăria Steaua Română.

C-431/12 Rafinăria Steaua Română

Judgment · 24 October 2013 · Romania

Default interest where set-off decisions blocking a VAT refund are annulled

Article 183 precludes such national law. Where excess VAT is not refunded within a reasonable period, fiscal neutrality requires compensation by default interest, calculated from the date the refund should normally have been made (here, expiry of the 45 day period). From the taxable person's perspective the reason for the delay is irrelevant. There is no material difference between administrative delay in handling a claim and delay caused by measures unlawfully blocking the refund which are later annulled. Confirms and extends Enel Maritsa Iztok 3.

C-591/10 Littlewoods Retail and Others

Judgment · 19 July 2012 · United Kingdom

Interest on VAT overpaid in breach of EU law, simple or compound

A taxable person who has overpaid VAT collected in breach of EU law has an EU law right to reimbursement of that tax and to interest on it. The method is left to national law, which decides between simple interest, compound interest or another type, subject to effectiveness (the taxpayer must not be deprived of adequate indemnity for the loss) and equivalence (no less favourable treatment than comparable domestic claims). The national court must verify compliance and may choose among the appropriate domestic procedures. Confirms that the entitlement to interest on overpaid VAT is grounded in EU law itself, not merely national statute, but that compound interest is not mandated. Relevant to retailers and others with long running Fleming style claims, and to whether statutory interest caps or exclusions of common law remedies can be challenged.

C-472/08 Alstom Power Hydro

Judgment · 21 January 2010 · Latvia

Three-year time limit for claiming a VAT refund

Article 18(4) does not preclude such a rule. Silence in the provision does not mean the right to repayment can be exercised without temporal limit. Unlimited claims would offend legal certainty. In the absence of Union rules, national procedural conditions apply subject to equivalence and effectiveness, and a three-year period is reasonable: it normally allows a reasonably diligent taxable person to assert its rights, a fortiori since a two-year limit has already been accepted for deduction. Confirms that Member States may cap refund claims for excess input VAT by a domestic limitation period, and that three years is comfortably within tolerance.

C-78/00 Commission v Italy

Judgment · 25 October 2001 · Italy

Refund of excess VAT by issue of government bonds

The Member State was not entitled to discharge the credits in that way. Member States have some latitude over the conditions of refund, but those conditions must allow the taxable person to recover the whole of the credit within a reasonable period, by payment in liquid funds or equivalent means, and must not expose him to any financial risk. Bonds maturing after five or ten years, delivered late, fail that test. The small number of traders affected, and the practical difficulty of remedying the position, were irrelevant. The benchmark for national refund mechanics. Relevant to persistently repayment-position businesses (importers, exporters, zero-rated sectors) in Member States operating unorthodox refund arrangements or budget-driven delays.

Related topics

Rules governing exercise of the right of deduction · Refund of VAT · Right of deduction · Fiscal neutrality · Recovery of undue payment · Principles of effectiveness and fiscal neutrality · Reduction of the taxable amount · Harmonisation of fiscal legislation · Principles of equivalence and effectiveness