VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Tax liability EU VAT case law

8 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2015 to 2026.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 8 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-575/24 Digipolis

Judgment · 25 February 2026 · Belgium

VAT status of an intermunicipal commissioning association

Such an association is a taxable person on its supplies to members, with no distinction by reference to members' VAT status, provided the supplies are for consideration and the association independently carries on an economic activity, matters for the national court. Cost-covering, pre-set lump sum contributions do not break the direct link. Article 13(1) does not shelter it. Telematics is telecommunications within Annex I and not negligible, and non-taxation could distort competition. The "emanation" theory cannot override that status. The Belgian "emanation" tolerance for commissioning associations and intermunicipal structures is incompatible with the Directive where the entity has its own legal personality, organs, staff, assets and risk.

T-638/24 Finanzamt Österreich (Intra-Community acquisition and supply – double taxation)

Judgment · 25 February 2026 · Austria

Article 41 taxation of intra-Community acquisitions alongside liability for VAT wrongly shown on the invoice

They do not preclude it. Articles 41 and 203 have distinct conditions and purposes and may apply simultaneously. The Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w W. case is distinguished because there the supply had been definitively treated as non-exempt and taxed, whereas an Article 203 liability arises from the invoice alone, not from taxation of the supply, and can in principle be corrected. The second question was not examined. Businesses that quote the departure Member State's VAT number on cross-border purchases can face acquisition tax there under Article 41 even where the supplier has also been made liable for VAT wrongly shown on the invoice. Relevant to periods before Directive 2018/1910.

C-368/21 Hauptzollamt Hamburg (Place where VAT is incurred – II)

Judgment · 8 September 2022 · Germany

Place of importation of a vehicle brought in unlawfully

The place of importation is the Member State in which the person who failed to comply with the customs obligations resides and actually uses the vehicle. Physical entry into the European Union and first use in another Member State are not decisive where that use served merely to move the vehicle to its final destination for actual and permanent use. A vehicle cannot be "consumed". Residence of the user is an indicator of where it enters the economic network. Confirms and extends Hauptzollamt Münster (C-7/20).

C-56/21 ARVI ir ko

Judgment · 30 June 2022 · Lithuania

Option to tax immovable property conditional on the buyer's VAT registration

Those provisions and principles preclude neither of the two national rules. Article 137(2) gives Member States wide discretion to set the detailed rules for, and restrict, the option to tax. A registration condition serves legal certainty and correct collection of VAT and does not affect the right to deduct, which without a valid option would not arise. The seller must therefore adjust. The purchaser's actual use of the property for taxed activities is irrelevant, but the authorities must still check for fraud or abuse by the seller. Confirms that formal conditions attached to the option to tax are not the same as formal conditions on the right to deduct: the Dobre line on VAT identification as a mere formality does not rescue a seller whose option fails. Relevant to property developers and vendors of second-hand commercial property in Member States with registration-based option regimes, notably Lithuania.

C-248/20 Skellefteå Industrihus

Order · 18 May 2021 · Sweden

Abandoned property project and the option to tax

By reasoned order under Article 99, the Court held that those provisions preclude national legislation requiring immediate repayment of the whole input VAT plus interest merely because the project produced no taxed activity. The discretion under Article 137(2) cannot revoke a right of deduction already acquired. They do not, however, preclude national legislation imposing an obligation to adjust the input VAT deducted, since abandoning the intended taxed use breaks the direct link required by Articles 184 to 185.

C-895/19 A. (Exercise of the right of deduction)

Judgment · 18 March 2021

A three-month deadline that split the deduction from the tax on an intra-Community acquisition

The Court held that Articles 167 and 178 preclude such national legislation. The right to deduct arises at the time the deductible tax becomes chargeable, and in the case of an intra-Community acquisition the tax due and the deduction relate to the same period. A national rule making the exercise of the deduction in that period dependent on compliance with a declaration deadline subjects the substantive right to a formal requirement, produces a charge to interest on a sum which the taxable person did not in fact owe to the treasury, and goes beyond what is necessary to ensure the correct collection of the tax and to prevent evasion. The judgment applies to the reverse charge on intra-Community acquisitions the distinction between formal and substantive requirements that runs through Ecotrade and its line.

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-331/14 Trgovina Prizma

Judgment · 9 July 2015 · Slovenia

Sale of land held as private assets by a sole trader

Allocating goods to private assets does not by itself take a sale outside VAT. The sale must also be made in the course of managing private assets rather than the economic activity. Where plots were acquired over a short period, were all necessary for the construction, and development work was carried out on them, the vendor acts as a taxable person and the sale is taxable. National verification reserved. Relevant to sole traders, property developers and their advisers who rely on holding land outside the business balance sheet.

Related topics

Adjustment of deductions · Immovable property · Rules governing exercise of the right of deduction · Supply of services · Economic activity · Other categories of taxable persons · Bodies governed by public law · Invoicing · Place of an intra-Community acquisition of goods · Fiscal neutrality