VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

State aid EU VAT case law

10 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 1987 to 2024.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 10 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-741/22 Casino de Spa and Others

Judgment · 12 September 2024 · Belgium

VAT exemption for online lotteries but not other online gambling

Differentiated treatment is permissible provided objective differences (chance alone determining winners, the waiting period, stakes and odds, cultural factors) considerably influence the average consumer's choice. The identity, legal form, licence category, regulatory regime and legislative objectives of providers are irrelevant. National courts must disapply provisions incompatible with Article 135(1)(i), a constitutional court's maintenance of effects being irrelevant. Tax wrongly levied is refundable unless refund unjustly enriches the taxable person. No damages equivalent to the VAT paid on unlawful State aid grounds. Relevant to gambling operators in Member States that split the exemption by game type.

C-75/18 Vodafone Magyarország

Judgment · 3 March 2020 · Hungary

Progressive turnover taxes and the prohibition on other turnover taxes

The Court held that Articles 49 and 54 TFEU do not preclude a progressive turnover tax merely because foreign-controlled undertakings bear most of it, where that follows from their achieving the highest turnover in the market. Turnover is a neutral criterion and a relevant indicator of ability to pay. Article 401 does not preclude a tax on overall turnover levied periodically, not at each stage of production and distribution, with no input deduction. The State aid question was inadmissible, the tax not being hypothecated to any exemption. Confirms that national sectoral turnover taxes sit outside Article 401 whenever they lack the staged-charging and deduction characteristics of VAT, so challenges on that basis are unlikely to succeed. Relevant to telecoms, retail, advertising and digital businesses facing progressive turnover levies in Hungary and elsewhere, and to advisers weighing such challenges.

C-493/15 Identi

Judgment · 16 March 2017 · Italy

Discharge of VAT debts in personal bankruptcy

EU law does not preclude it. The procedure is subject to strict conditions: the debtor's estate must have been fully liquidated, creditors at least partly satisfied, the debtor must satisfy probity and good faith requirements, and a court examines each case with the tax authority able to be heard and to appeal. It is therefore not a general and indiscriminate waiver of VAT. Nor is it State aid because those excluded are not in a comparable situation, so there is no selective advantage. Confirms and extends Degano Trasporti beyond arrangements with creditors to personal bankruptcy discharge.

C-185/14 EasyPay and Finance Engineering

Judgment · 22 October 2015 · Bulgaria

Exclusive right to pay pensions by postal money order

Money order services are outside Directive 97/67. Article 2 lists postal services exhaustively and covers no financial services, even those provided as an add-on by postal operators. As to Article 107(1) TFEU, if the money order activity is separable from the national pensions system it is an economic activity, but the exclusive right is not caught where the service is a service of general economic interest and the remuneration is Altmark compliant compensation. The national court must verify separability and the Altmark conditions. Confirms that postal financial services, money orders included, sit outside the postal Directive and are governed by the general Treaty rules, so postal operators and their competitors cannot rely on Directive 97/67 liberalisation arguments here.

C-460/07 Puffer

Judgment · 23 April 2009 · Austria

Full deduction on mixed-use buildings and the scope of the standstill clause

Articles 17(2)(a) and 6(2)(a) do not breach equal treatment. Any cash-flow advantage flows from the taxable person's status and economic activity, so different rules apply to different situations. Article 87(1) EC does not apply, since the restriction of deduction to taxed transactions derives from the Directive itself, not State intervention. The standstill clause does not cover new rules based on a different logic and new procedures, even where the outcome is equivalent and even if the legislature misread Community law. Whether an unamended parallel exclusion survives depends on its autonomy, for the national court. Confirms that a taxable person allocating a mixed-use building wholly to the business may deduct all input VAT immediately, with private use taxed under Article 6(2)(a). Relevant to property owners and advisers handling mixed-use construction, and to any challenge to grandfathered domestic input tax blocks.

C-172/03 Heiser

Judgment · 3 March 2005 · Austria

Waiver of input tax adjustment on changeover to exemption as State aid

Such a rule constitutes State aid. A self-employed dentist is an undertaking. The waiver relieves a charge normally borne by his business and so confers an advantage, is selective even though it benefits an entire sector, and distorts competition because price influences patients' choice, particularly where they bear over half the cost. Small amounts, the local nature of medical care and an alleged social purpose or the wish to match conditions in other Member States do not remove the measure from Article 92. The de minimis notice was not shown to apply. Relevant where a Member State softens the transition to exemption by suspending capital goods adjustments.

C-308/01 GIL Insurance

Judgment · 29 April 2004 · United Kingdom

Insurance premium tax and the prohibition on turnover taxes

The tax must be assessed as a single tax with two rates. It is not a turnover tax. It is not general, is charged once only on conclusion of the contract and does not tax added value, so Article 33 permits it. Being compatible with Article 33, it does not derogate from the insurance exemption and no Article 27 authorisation was required. The differential rate is justified by the nature and general scheme of the national insurance tax system and is therefore not State aid, so the remaining questions fell away. Confirms that Member States may operate insurance premium taxes alongside the VAT exemption, including differentiated rates aimed at discouraging the substitution of exempt insurance for standard-rated service and maintenance contracts, without Council derogation.

C-36/99 Idéal Tourisme

Judgment · 13 July 2000 · Belgium

Equal treatment and retained transitional exemptions for passenger transport

Given the present, only partial, harmonisation of VAT, equal treatment does not preclude a Member State from exempting international air passenger transport under Article 28(3)(b) while taxing coach transport. In retaining such pre-existing provisions the Member State is not transposing the Directive, so the general principles binding on implementation do not bite. Existing exemptions may be reduced but not extended. Equalising upwards by taxing air transport is permissible. The State aid question was held manifestly irrelevant and unanswered. Confirms that operators cannot use equal treatment to extend a retained Annex F exemption to themselves.

C-437/97 EKW and Wein & Co

Judgment · 9 March 2000 · Austria

Municipal beverage duty and the limits of Article 33

Article 33 does not preclude the duty. It is not a general tax, applying only to a limited category of goods, so the other VAT characteristics need not be examined. Under Directive 92/12, the duty on non-alcoholic beverages and ice cream is permitted by Article 3(3), but Article 3(2) precludes it on alcoholic beverages. Municipal fiscal autonomy is a purely budgetary aim, and the charge follows neither the excise nor the VAT scheme. The State aid question was irrelevant and unanswered. Confirms that a selective consumption tax escapes Article 33 simply for want of generality, so a challenge to a local turnover-style levy runs under Directive 92/12 rather than the VAT Directive.

C-253/84 GAEC de la Ségaude v Council and Commission

Judgment · 15 January 1987 · France

Damages claim over German VAT relief for farmers

The action was dismissed. No damage was proved for milk and poultry, no figures having been supplied despite the Court's request. For beef and veal, the fall in French prices and the rise in German imports had begun before the decision entered into force, so no direct causal link was shown. Absent damage and causation, the Court did not rule on the lawfulness of the decision. The future damage claim failed for the same evidential reason. Of limited practical relevance to day to day VAT compliance.

Related topics

Obligation of good faith · Direct effect · Betting, lotteries and gambling · Recovery of undue payment · Exemptions · Fiscal neutrality · Unjust enrichment · Concept of value added tax and other similar taxes · Obligations of taxable persons · Economic activity