VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Scope of VAT EU VAT case law

24 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 1996 to 2026.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 24 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-413/25 Peckeger

Judgment · 2 September 2026 · Austria

Contributing property for no shares, and the limits a Member State may place on Article 19

The General Court held that the contribution is not a supply of goods for consideration, since the transferor obtains no actual consideration for the properties. It is, however, an application of goods forming part of the business assets, transferred free of charge or applied for purposes other than those of the business within the first paragraph of Article 16, and is therefore treated as a supply for consideration. The Court further held that Article 19 precludes national legislation restricting the regime to certain categories of activity or income, including where the legislature opted for the rule before accession but confined it to specific cases not covered by the second paragraph of Article 19. Finally, the first paragraph of Article 19 has direct effect and may be relied on before the national courts. The transfer of a totality of assets is an autonomous concept of EU law, and the second paragraph of Article 19 sets out the only grounds on which a Member State may restrict it.

C-726/23 Arcomet Towercranes

Judgment · 4 September 2025 · Romania

Transfer pricing adjustments as consideration for intra-group services

Contractually detailed intra-group services remunerated by reference to the margin above 2.74%, calculated on an OECD-recommended method, are consideration for a supply of services for consideration. The remuneration is variable but neither voluntary nor uncertain, being fixed in advance on precise criteria. The authority may require evidence beyond the invoice that the services were actually supplied and used for taxed output transactions, provided it is necessary and proportionate. It may not require proof that the services were necessary or economically appropriate. A group treating a year-end transfer pricing true-up as a pure profit adjustment outside VAT cannot maintain that position where the payment is tied to identified services under an intra-group agreement. Relevant to transfer pricing and indirect tax teams in multinational groups, and to advisers handling Romanian and other reverse-charge intra-group management fee audits.

C-640/23 Greentech

Judgment · 13 March 2025 · Romania

Deduction refused after reclassification as a transfer of a going concern

Deduction may be refused. The right to deduct exists only for tax actually due, so where the transaction is definitively outside the scope of VAT there is nothing to deduct, and the absence of any risk of revenue loss does not change that. The qualification is that a claim for reimbursement is distinct from a deduction claim. Where recovery from the seller is impossible or excessively difficult, neutrality and effectiveness require the buyer to be able to apply directly to the tax authorities for repayment. Where an acquisition is recharacterised as a transfer of a going concern, the point is not a deduction dispute but a direct repayment claim against the tax authorities, once recovery from the seller is time-barred or otherwise blocked. Relevant to asset deals and intra-group transfers of business assets, and to Member States whose rules rely solely on invoice correction plus a civil claim.

C-184/23 Finanzamt T II

Judgment · 11 July 2024 · Germany

Intra-group supplies for consideration where the recipient cannot deduct

Services supplied for consideration between members of the same group treated by a Member State as a single taxable person are not subject to VAT, even where the recipient cannot deduct the input VAT. A supplier inside the group cannot be treated individually as a separate taxable person, so the independence test in Article 4(1) is not reached. The "risk of tax losses" condition from the December 2022 judgments concerns only the designation of the controlling company as single taxable person, not the taxation of internal supplies. Confirmation, on the Sixth Directive and by extension Article 11 of Directive 2006/112, that intra-group supplies remain outside VAT regardless of the recipient's deduction position.

C-729/21 Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Łodzi

Order · 16 January 2023 · Poland

Transfer of a business without every asset, and no requirement that the buyer succeed the seller

The Court held that Article 19 does not preclude a national provision that omits any condition about the transferee succeeding to the person of the transferor. The option in Article 19 is exercised on the terms the Member State chooses, subject to the limits in the directive. On the second question it held that the concept does cover the transfer of part of an undertaking even where not all of its constituent elements are transferred, provided that the elements actually transferred are sufficient to allow that business to carry on an autonomous economic activity. The operative criterion is functional, and it is the one to apply in practice.

C-605/20 Suzlon Wind Energy Portugal

Judgment · 24 February 2022 · Portugal

Warranty repair costs recharged within a group, supply of services for consideration

Such transactions are a supply of services for consideration. The contractual framework identified supplier, customer and the nature of the services, the debit notes were booked as remuneration, and neither the absence of any profit margin nor the existence of a warranty on the goods alters that. The Court distinguished the position where the taxable person acts in the name and on behalf of another, using a suspense account under Article 79(c), not deducting input VAT and invoicing in the principal's name. Verification is for the national court. Relevant to any group recharging warranty rectification costs to a manufacturer or parent, in manufacturing, energy and equipment supply chains.

C-21/20 Balgarska natsionalna televizia

Judgment · 16 September 2021 · Bulgaria

Public broadcasting funded by State subsidy and the scope of deduction

The activity is not a supply for consideration. There is no legal relationship of reciprocal performance with viewers and no direct link between the services and the subsidy, which is set per programme hour regardless of viewership. Le Rayon d'Or is distinguished. The exemption question therefore falls away. Under Article 168, input VAT is deductible on purchases used for activities giving rise to deduction and not deductible on purchases used for out-of-scope activities. The method of financing is irrelevant. Member States set the apportionment method, respecting proportionality. Public broadcasters and comparable subsidy-funded bodies must treat free-to-air public service output as outside the scope of VAT, not exempt, and exclude it from the Articles 173 to 175 pro rata. Relevant to advisers to public bodies, cultural and media organisations and any taxable person with substantial grant funding alongside taxable supplies.

C-94/19 San Domenico Vetraria

Judgment · 11 March 2020 · Italy

Secondment of staff at cost as a supply for consideration

Article 2, point 1 precludes such national legislation, provided the amounts paid by the subsidiary and the secondment are interdependent, that is, the secondment was made only on condition of payment and the payment made only in return for the secondment. That is for the national court to verify. Whether the consideration equals, exceeds or falls short of the provider's costs is irrelevant and does not break the direct link. Groups that second staff between entities on a pure cost recharge basis cannot assume the recharge is outside the scope.

C-201/18 Mydibel

Judgment · 27 March 2019 · Belgium

Adjustment of input tax on a sale and lease back of buildings

Subject to the national court's verification of the facts and national law, no adjustment is required. Creating an emphyteutic right not subject to VAT is not in itself a change in the factors determining the deduction, and where the emphyteutic right and the leaseback are so closely linked as to form a single transaction, no supply of goods occurs because the institutions cannot dispose of the buildings as owner. Had adjustment been due, it would nevertheless respect neutrality and equal treatment. Relevant to businesses using sale and lease back of real estate as a financing tool, and to their lenders and lessors.

C-502/17 C&D Foods Acquisition

Judgment · 8 November 2018 · Denmark

Deduction on an abandoned sale of shares in a sub-subsidiary

A share disposal falls within the scope of VAT only where its direct and exclusive reason is the taxable economic activity of the company concerned, or where it is the direct, permanent and necessary extension of that activity, for instance where the proceeds are allocated to that activity or the group's economic activity. Here the proceeds were intended to settle debt owed to the new group owner, so the transaction was outside the scope and the VAT not deductible. That the sale never completed, and that the management services would have ceased, changed nothing. For holding companies and private equity structures what has to be established, before the deal costs are incurred, is the purpose to which the sale proceeds are destined.

C-544/16 Marcandi

Judgment · 5 July 2018 · United Kingdom

Sale of bid credits for online auctions as a separate supply of services

Issuing the credits is a supply of services for consideration, the consideration being the amount paid for them. The credits give an autonomous chance to buy below market value and are exhausted on bidding, so this is not a preliminary transaction to the supply of goods. The payment is not a payment on account for goods. Credit value is excluded from the taxable amount of the goods. For winners the taxable amount is the winning bid plus shipping, and for "buy now" and "earned discount" purchases the credits are a price discount under Article 79(b). Relevant to gamified e-commerce, entry-fee and pay-to-play platforms selling non-refundable tokens, credits or bid packs.

C-37/16 SAWP

Judgment · 18 January 2017 · Poland

Private copying levies are outside the scope of VAT

No supply of services within the Directive. There is no legal relationship involving reciprocal performance. The obligation to pay arises from national law, which also sets the amount, and the fee funds fair compensation linked to the harm caused by unauthorised reproduction rather than being direct consideration for an identifiable service. Whether an assignment of intangible property under Article 25(a) exists was left open, since such a transaction would fall outside the Directive anyway. The second question fell away. Statutory private copying and reprography levies carry no VAT for collecting societies or rightholders in the music, audiovisual, publishing and reprographic sectors, and no invoices with VAT are required either from the society to producers and importers or from rightholders to the society.

C-400/15 Landkreis Potsdam-Mittelmark

Judgment · 15 September 2016 · Germany

Scope of the German 10% derogation and non-economic use

The derogation does not apply where the goods or services acquired are used more than 90% for non-economic activities falling outside the scope of VAT. "Non-business purposes" bears its Sixth Directive meaning. Use for purposes other than the business, which may be taxed, is distinct from non-economic activity, which is outside the system altogether. Excluding deduction where economic use is below 10% breaches fiscal neutrality. The earlier interpretation applies retroactively, so no different reading applies before 12-02-2009. Public bodies and other entities in Germany with mixed economic and non-economic activity can rely on the ruling to claim a proportional deduction for the economic part, however small, since the 10% floor in Paragraph 15(1) UStG cannot be applied to non-economic use.

C-11/15 Český rozhlas

Judgment · 22 June 2016 · Czechia

Public broadcasting funded by a statutory licence fee is outside the scope of VAT

Such broadcasting is not a supply for consideration and falls outside the Directive. There is no legal relationship involving reciprocal performance and no direct link. Liability for the fee follows mere possession of a receiver, whatever its use, and access to the broadcasts is free and not conditional on payment. A statutory triangular arrangement between the State, the broadcaster and fee payers does not change that, and Article 13A(1)(q) cannot widen the scope set by Article 2. Public broadcasters and other bodies funded by statutory levies must treat that funding as outside the scope rather than exempt, which affects how the deduction fraction is built and can restrict input tax on non-economic activity, the opposite of what the broadcaster sought here. Relevant to broadcasting, cultural and other publicly financed entities with mixed commercial income.

C-108/14 Larentia + Minerva and Marenave Schiffahrt

Judgment · 16 July 2015 · Germany

Holding company input tax and the scope of VAT grouping

Where the holding company involves itself in the management of the subsidiaries, the acquisition costs are general overheads and VAT is in principle fully deductible, subject to Article 17(5) if there are exempt outputs. Where it manages only some subsidiaries, deduction is proportionate, on apportionment criteria set by Member States. Restricting grouping to subordinated legal persons is precluded unless necessary and appropriate to counter abuse or evasion, a matter for the national court. Article 4(4) has no direct effect. Confirms full deduction for genuine management holding companies, including on share issue and financing costs, and confines partial restriction to cases where some shareholdings are purely passive. Relevant to shipping, private equity and group holding structures.

C-151/13 Le Rayon d’Or

Judgment · 27 March 2014 · France

Lump-sum public funding as consideration for care services

Such a lump sum is consideration for the care supplied by the home to its residents and falls within the scope of VAT. Payment by a third party rather than the recipient does not break the direct link. Where the supply consists in the provider's permanent availability to give care as required, it is unnecessary that the care be defined in advance, personalised, or requested at a specific time, provided the amount is fixed in advance on well-established criteria. Relevant to care homes, hospitals, clinics and other operators funded by block or capitation payments from public insurance or social funds, and to advisers computing partial exemption fractions.

C-29/08 SKF

Judgment · 29 October 2009 · Sweden

Deduction on costs of selling shares in a subsidiary

The disposal is an economic activity within scope, unless it can be equated to a transfer of a going concern and the Member State has exercised the Article 19 option, in which case it falls outside VAT. Where in scope, it is exempt under Article 135(1)(f). Input VAT on the related services is deductible only if the costs have a direct and immediate link with the taxable person's economic activity as a whole rather than with the exempt sale itself. The national court must decide whether the costs are built into the share price. Staged disposals are treated identically. Holding companies that intervene in the management of subsidiaries can no longer be told that exemption of the share sale automatically blocks deduction.

C-291/07 Kollektivavtalsstiftelsen TRR Trygghetsrådet

Judgment · 6 November 2008 · Sweden

Taxable person status of a mixed activity recipient of consultancy services

Such a recipient is a taxable person for the purposes of those provisions even where the consultancy is acquired solely for activities falling outside the scope of the Directives, because Article 9(2)(e) says nothing about the services having to be acquired for the recipient's economic activity. It follows that the recipient is liable for the VAT under Article 21(1)(b) (now Article 196), regardless of the use made of the services. Relevant to any mixed activity body established in the EU.

C-78/02 Karageorgou and Others

Judgment · 6 November 2003 · Greece

VAT invoiced in error by employees, not VAT at all

A person bound by an employer-employee relationship does not act independently under Article 4(4) and is not a taxable person, so the services are outside Article 2(1) and the amount shown as VAT cannot be classified as VAT. Article 21(1)(c) therefore does not bar repayment. Because no genuine VAT is involved there is no risk of loss of VAT revenue, so good faith need not be shown for adjustment, unlike Genius Holding. The Court accepted the national court's finding on employment status. Useful where a supposedly self-employed contractor is later reclassified as an employee and has been invoicing VAT throughout.

C-16/00 Cibo Participations

Judgment · 27 September 2001 · France

Deduction of acquisition costs by a holding company involved in managing its subsidiaries

Involvement in management is an economic activity where it entails carrying out transactions subject to VAT under Article 2, such as supplying administrative, financial, commercial and technical services to subsidiaries. Acquisition service costs have no direct and immediate link with a particular output transaction. They are general costs linked to the business as a whole, so where the holding company makes both deductible and non-deductible transactions only the proportion under Article 17(5) is recoverable. Dividends fall outside the scope of VAT altogether. The foundation for treating share acquisition costs of active holding companies as general overheads rather than costs of an out-of-scope share purchase.

C-142/99 Floridienne and Berginvest

Judgment · 14 November 2000 · Belgium

Dividends and intra-group loan interest in the deductible proportion of a holding company

Both must be excluded from the denominator. Dividends are never consideration for the management services. Their amount depends on year-end results and attaches to the class of shares, not the shareholder's identity, so the necessary direct link is absent. Interest is excluded unless the lending is itself an economic activity, meaning continuous, not merely occasional or portfolio management, and pursued with a commercial concern to maximise returns. Lending to managed subsidiaries is not a direct, permanent and necessary extension of the services. Mere reinvestment of dividends is not taxable. The national court must verify this. Confirms that active holding companies cannot be forced to dilute their recovery rate by dividends received, however extensive their management involvement, which matters for group service companies and intermediate holdings across partial exemption calculations. Relevant to anyone reviewing group financing structures and holding company VAT registrations.

C-3/97 Goodwin and Unstead

Judgment · 28 May 1998 · United Kingdom

VAT on supplies of counterfeit goods

VAT is payable on the supply of counterfeit perfumes. Fiscal neutrality precludes any general distinction between lawful and unlawful transactions. The narrow exception covers only goods that cannot be placed on the market at all because of their intrinsic nature. The prohibition on counterfeits is conditional, arising from infringement of third parties' intellectual property rights, and counterfeits compete with a lawful perfume market, so they are not extra commercium. Confirms that illegality of the underlying trade is no defence to a VAT assessment or to prosecution for evasion.

C-45/95 Commission v Italy

Judgment · 25 June 1997 · Italy

Exemption for onward sales of goods with no input tax deduction

Italy had failed to fulfil its obligations. The absence of any exemption for onward supplies of goods used wholly for an exempt activity breached Article 13B(c), whatever the practical size of the double taxation. Member States may set conditions for applying the exemption but may not recharacterise an exempt transaction as one falling outside the scope of VAT, because that produces different effects, notably on the deductible proportion calculated under Article 19. Confirms that exempt and out of scope are not interchangeable transposition techniques.

C-306/94 Régie dauphinoise

Judgment · 11 July 1996 · France

Interest on treasury placements and the deductible proportion

The placements are services supplied to the financial institutions, consideration for making capital available rather than mere ownership of an asset, so they fall within the scope of VAT. Unlike dividends received by a holding company. Because the interest is the direct, permanent and necessary extension of the property management business, the manager acts as a taxable person and the transactions are not incidental within Article 19(2). The interest therefore goes into the denominator of the deductible proportion. The test for "incidental" is qualitative, not a percentage threshold. Relevant to property managers, condominium administrators, agents and any business holding client or tenant monies in its own name and keeping the interest.

Related topics

Supply of services · Origin and scope of right of deduction · Right of deduction · Economic activity · Supply of goods · Transfer of a totality of assets or part thereof · Direct effect · Other categories of taxable persons · Taxable person · Proportional deduction