VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Reverse charge EU VAT case law

22 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2004 to 2026.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 22 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.

T-773/25 Finanzamt für Großbetriebe

Judgment · 7 October 2026 · Austria

Triangular transactions, a first invoice marked 'Reverse charge' issued years later does not trigger the simplification, not even for the future

Issuing, several years after the supplies, invoices that carry the 'Reverse charge' reference for the first time does not trigger the legal consequences of the simplification for those supplies, and the adjustment cannot be declared in the current or a future tax period. The General Court builds on Luxury Trust Automobil (C-247/21). The reference is a substantive condition, and meeting it afterwards is not a correction but the first issue of the required invoice, which cannot be retroactive. Accepting an effect limited to the future would in substance be retroactive, since the regime that applied to those supplies until then, and the legal position of the final customer, would be changed after the event. In the meantime the tax under Article 41 and the intermediate acquirer's obligations to register, declare and pay in the Member State of destination have already arisen and do not disappear, so the aim of simplification can no longer be achieved, and taxation at destination may be at risk if, for instance, the final customer no longer exists. There was no need to answer the second and third questions. The judgment closes the question left open by Luxury Trust Automobil, which ruled out retroactive effect but did not say whether a late invoice could work for the future. It reaches intermediate acquirers in triangular chains whose original invoices lack the reference.

C-247/21 Luxury Trust Automobil

Judgment · 8 December 2022 · Austria

Invoice wording as a condition of the triangulation simplification

No valid designation: in a triangular transaction the words "Reverse charge" under Article 226(11a) cannot be replaced by another form of wording, however informative. Nor can the omission be cured retrospectively. Adding the reference later is the first issue of the required invoice and has no retroactive effect, because designation of the customer as liable is a substantive condition of Article 42(a), not a formality. The Article 219a question therefore did not need answering. In any event these requirements cannot vary between Member States. Anyone using the Article 141 simplification must put "Reverse charge" on the invoice at the outset.

C-146/21 DGRFP Bucureşti

Judgment · 30 June 2022 · Romania

VAT registration as a condition for applying the domestic reverse charge

The Directive and the principle of fiscal neutrality do not preclude such a condition. A Member State authorised to derogate from Article 193 may set conditions for applying the reverse charge, including prior VAT registration, provided fiscal neutrality is respected. Article 199(2) supports this and the exception must be read strictly. The case law treating registration as a mere formality applies to the right of deduction. Refusing the reverse charge does not deprive the customer of deduction, and the condition is objective and proportionate given control difficulties in the timber market. Confirms that the formalities case law on deduction does not transfer automatically to reverse charge eligibility.

C-281/20 Ferimet

Judgment · 11 November 2021 · Spain

Deduction where the invoice names a fictitious supplier under the reverse charge

Naming the supplier is a formal condition, but the supplier's status as a taxable person is a material one. Deduction must be refused where, on the facts and the evidence the taxable person produces, the information needed to verify that the true supplier was a taxable person is lacking, or where it is established to the requisite legal standard that the taxable person committed VAT fraud or knew or should have known the transaction was connected with such fraud. Neither a risk of revenue loss nor a tax advantage need be shown. Relevant to scrap, metals and waste traders and anyone self-billing under domestic reverse charges.

C-835/18 Terracult

Judgment · 2 July 2020 · Romania

Correcting invoices after a final tax assessment where reverse charge applied

The Directive and those principles preclude such legislation or practice. Where the reverse charge applied, the supplier was never the person liable, no risk of loss of revenue arises (the recipient can deduct), and refusal to refund imposes a burden contrary to neutrality. Finality of the earlier assessment cannot bar correction while the five-year limitation period runs, particularly where the relevant facts emerged only after the assessment and the complaint window was days. Negligence may attract a penalty, but not outright denial of refund. Fraud or abuse would be different. Relevant to suppliers in reverse charge sectors (cereals, industrial crops and other Article 199a categories) and to anyone who has paid an assessment rather than appeal it.

C-691/17 PORR Építési Kft.

Judgment · 11 April 2019 · Hungary

Deduction refused where reverse charge should have applied

Deduction was rightly refused. The VAT paid to the suppliers was not due and a substantive condition of the reverse charge, payment of the tax by the recipient to the authorities, was unmet. The authority need not check first whether the suppliers could correct the invoices or recover the tax. The qualification is that where recovery from the supplier is impossible or excessively difficult, notably on the supplier's insolvency, the recipient must be able to claim reimbursement directly from the tax authority, by a claim distinct from deduction.

C-434/17 Human Operator

Judgment · 13 February 2019 · Hungary

Retroactive application of a derogation authorising reverse charge

A Member State may not apply the derogating measure before the Council decision has been notified to it. Under Article 297(2) TFEU the decision took effect on notification, and legal certainty precludes retroactivity absent an express provision. The Member State's stated wish, and the Commission's awareness that it had already begun applying the measure, are irrelevant. For the earlier period the general rule in Article 193 applies, is unconditional and sufficiently precise, and can be relied on directly. The suppliers, not the recipients, were liable. Relevant to businesses in Member States that jump the gun on Article 395 derogations, particularly labour supply, staffing and construction sectors.

C-314/17 „Geocycle Bulgaria“

Order · 23 November 2017 · Bulgaria

The same VAT cannot be collected twice on a single supply under reverse charge

The Court holds that those principles do preclude such a refusal, in circumstances where national law provides no possibility of correcting the VAT once a tax adjustment decision exists. Collecting the tax twice on a single supply and denying deduction leaves the burden on the taxable person, contrary to neutrality, and the absence of any corrective mechanism makes the right to deduct impossible to exercise in practice. The order governs wherever a reverse charge has been mishandled and both parties have accounted for the tax.

C-392/16 Marcu

Judgment · 6 July 2017 · Romania

Retroactive VAT registration and access to the reverse charge

The reference was declared inadmissible. The Court found the reverse charge under Article 199(1)(c) could not apply to the transactions at all. It requires supplies exempt under Article 135(1)(j) and (k) for which the supplier has opted for taxation under Article 137, and no such option appeared to exist in Romanian law nor had it been exercised. Supplies falling under Article 12(1)(a) and (b) are outside the exhaustive list in Article 199(1). The question was therefore hypothetical. A reminder that Article 199(1) is an exhaustive derogation from Article 193. Relevant to property developers and occasional land traders facing retroactive registration in Romania and similar jurisdictions.

C-564/15 Farkas

Judgment · 26 April 2017 · Hungary

Reverse charge applied to the wrong transaction, deduction and penalty

Article 199(1)(g) applies only to immovable property sold by a judgment debtor in a compulsory sale. Deduction of VAT that was not due may be refused even though the seller paid it to the Treasury. The purchaser must seek reimbursement from the seller. But where that is impossible or excessively difficult, notably on the seller's insolvency, he must be able to claim directly from the tax authority. A 50% penalty for a purely administrative error causing no revenue loss appears disproportionate, subject to the national court's assessment. Confirms that domestic reverse charges cannot be extended beyond the categories listed in Article 199 without an Article 395 derogation, which is where national insolvency and auction regimes are exposed.

C-550/14 Envirotec Denmark

Judgment · 26 May 2016 · Denmark

Reverse charge on gold material, scrap ingots of 325 thousandths or greater

Article 198(2) applies to such ingots. Neither the wording nor the context is decisive, so the anti-evasion objective governs. For anything other than a finished product, the gold content determines value and hence the evasion risk, so purity of 325 thousandths or greater is what matters. Article 199(1)(d) is not necessarily exclusive of Article 198(2), which is a lex specialis. Ingots of waste with gold purity below 325 thousandths may still fall under Article 199(1)(d) where implemented. Traders and refiners buying gold-bearing scrap in Member States that have implemented Article 198(2) must test purity, not appearance or classification as waste.

C-111/14 GST - Sarviz Germania

Judgment · 23 April 2015 · Bulgaria

Reverse charge applied in error where the supplier had a fixed establishment

Where the services are supplied from a fixed establishment in the Member State of taxation, the supplier alone is liable. Article 194 does not permit the authorities to treat the recipient as liable, even where the recipient has already paid on a mistaken assumption. Refusing the supplier a refund breaches fiscal neutrality where the recipient's deduction has been definitively denied and invoices cannot be adjusted. The outcome would differ if national law allowed the supplier to adjust its invoices and recover the VAT from the recipient. Relevant wherever a fixed establishment is asserted retrospectively on audit and the customer has meanwhile self-accounted.

C-590/13 Idexx Laboratories Italia

Judgment · 11 December 2014 · Italy

Formal versus substantive requirements for deduction under the reverse charge

Articles 18(1)(d) and 22 lay down formal requirements only: accounting, invoicing and return obligations. Non-compliance cannot cause loss of the right to deduct in circumstances such as these. The substantive requirements for intra-Community acquisitions flow from Article 17(2)(d). Acquisition by a taxable person liable for the VAT, goods used for taxable transactions. The position could differ if the formal breaches prevented conclusive proof that those substantive requirements were met. Here the authority had all the necessary information. Confirms and clarifies Ecotrade for businesses assessed on reverse charge acquisitions where registers or self-invoices were incomplete or missing entirely.

C-7/13 Skandia America (USA), filial Sverige

Judgment · 17 September 2014 · Sweden

Services from a third country head office to a branch inside a VAT group

Such supplies are taxable. The branch itself is not an independent taxable person, but by joining a VAT group it ceases to be identifiable separately. The services are treated as supplied to the group, which is a taxable person distinct from the head office. Since the services fall within Article 56 and the supplier is established in a third country, the VAT group as purchaser is liable for the VAT under Article 196. Grouping a branch changes the VAT analysis of internal cost allocations from head office.

C-272/13 Equoland

Judgment · 17 July 2014 · Italy

Virtual placement in a VAT warehouse and double collection of import VAT

A physical placement requirement is compatible with the Directive. It is a formal condition but an effective and proportionate means of ensuring correct collection and preventing evasion. However, where the tax has already been paid under the reverse charge with no evasion or loss to the exchequer, requiring payment again, without a corresponding deduction, breaches neutrality. A fixed percentage increase incapable of gradation may exceed what is necessary. Default interest may suffice. Proportionality is for the national court. Relevant to importers, freight forwarders and warehousekeepers using VAT warehousing regimes, particularly in Italy.

C-424/12 Fatorie

Judgment · 6 February 2014 · Romania

Deduction where reverse charge VAT is wrongly paid to the supplier

The right to deduct may be refused in those circumstances. This was not merely a formal invoicing defect. By paying the VAT to the supplier instead of accounting for it to the tax authorities, the recipient breached a substantive condition of the reverse charge regime, and deduction is available only for tax actually due. The supplier's insolvency does not alter that. The recipient's remedy is a civil claim against the supplier under national law. Legal certainty does not preclude revocation of an earlier favourable decision and reassessment with default interest within the limitation period, subject to proportionality. Confirms the limit of the Bockemühl and Ecotrade line. Relevant to construction and other domestic reverse charge sectors, where the remedy for a recipient is correction of the invoice rather than payment of tax shown in error.

C-125/12 Promociones y Construcciones BJ 200

Judgment · 13 June 2013 · Spain

Reverse charge on property sold in insolvency proceedings

The Court held that every sale of immovable property by a judgment debtor comes within "compulsory sale procedure", whether made in the liquidation of the debtor's assets or in insolvency proceedings preceding liquidation, provided the sale is necessary either to settle creditors' claims or to enable the debtor to re-establish its economic or professional activities. The Spanish text ("liquidación") is narrower than most language versions and does not govern. A strict reading of the derogation must not deprive it of effect. On a purchase of real estate from an insolvent Spanish seller, and elsewhere on the same reasoning, reverse charge liability runs from the moment insolvency proceedings open and not only once liquidation begins.

C-395/11 BLV Wohn- und Gewerbebau

Judgment · 13 December 2012 · Germany

Scope of the German construction reverse charge derogation

"Construction work" covers supplies of goods as well as supplies of services. The goods/services classification is irrelevant, since the VAT loss risk is the same. Germany could exercise the authorisation only in part, by subcategories of work and of recipient, provided it respects fiscal neutrality and the general principles of EU law, notably proportionality and legal certainty. The national court must check compliance, in particular whether taxable persons could know precisely who owed the tax, and remedy any harmful consequences. Confirms that domestic construction reverse charges built on Article 27 derogations are not confined to services, so contract-work arrangements involving materials and building on the recipient's land fall within scope.

C-624/10 Commission v France

Judgment · 15 December 2011 · France

A French administrative tolerance displacing the reverse charge was unlawful

The Court finds the infringement established. The scheme breached the VAT Directive and in particular Articles 168, 171, 193, 194, 204 and 214. Where the reverse charge applies the person liable is the customer, and a non established supplier that is not liable for the tax must recover its input VAT through the refund procedure rather than through a domestic registration and set-off. France was ordered to pay the costs. A reminder that the person liable for the tax and the route to recovering input VAT are fixed by the directive and are not at the disposal of national administrative practice, however convenient the simplification.

C-392/09 Uszodaépítő

Judgment · 30 September 2010 · Hungary

Retroactive invoicing formalities and the right to deduct under reverse charge

They do preclude it, where the tax authority already holds all the information needed to establish that the taxable person is liable to the VAT as recipient and to verify the deductible amount. Under a reverse charge only the formalities permitted by Article 178(f) apply, so no invoice meeting the Directive's formal invoicing conditions is required, and national formalities must not go beyond what is strictly necessary to check the reverse charge. Electing into the new law does not itself affect the right to deduct. Confirms, for construction and other reverse charge sectors, that under Article 178(f) the recipient's deduction does not depend on a formally compliant invoice, and that where substantive conditions are met and the authority has the information it needs, refusal for missing formalities is unlawful.

C-95/07 Ecotrade

Judgment · 8 May 2008 · Italy

Limitation periods and formal breaches under the reverse charge

A limitation period for deduction is permissible provided the principles of equivalence and effectiveness are respected. Effectiveness is not breached merely because the authorities have longer to recover unpaid VAT, the two situations not being comparable. However, denying deduction as a penalty for breach of national formalities and of accounting and declaration obligations under the reverse charge is disproportionate where the substantive conditions are met. A proportionate fine is the appropriate sanction. Confirms that fiscal neutrality protects reverse charge deduction where the tax authority has the data needed to establish liability, so self-billing and dual register failures cannot be met with a net VAT charge plus loss of input tax. Relevant to businesses receiving cross-border services and to advisers handling Italian and other national assessments where limitation periods are asymmetric.

C-90/02 Bockemühl

Judgment · 1 April 2004 · Germany

Invoice requirements and deduction under the reverse charge

Only Article 18(1)(d) applies to the reverse charge. The recipient liable for the tax need not hold an Article 22(3) invoice to deduct, and must merely comply with the formalities laid down by the Member State. Those formalities must serve collection and verification and may not go beyond what is strictly necessary to verify correct application of the reverse charge, nor render deduction practically impossible or excessively difficult. The second and third questions therefore did not require an answer. Confirms that reverse charge deduction cannot be refused for invoice defects where the authority already has the information showing the recipient is liable, and in what amount.

Related topics

Persons liable for payment of VAT · Rules governing exercise of the right of deduction · Right of deduction · Fiscal neutrality · Origin and scope of right of deduction · Proportionality · Obligations of taxable persons · Legal certainty · Proof · Tax evasion and abuse