General Court VAT Case: T-880/25 (Czechanowicz Ekologia i Zielen) – Questions – Invoice‑Level Data Requirements in EU VAT Refunds

The General Court of the European Union has released the preliminary ruling request in the case T-880/25 (Czechanowicz Ekologia i Zielen).

Context:

Summary

Core issue: Whether an electronic VAT refund application under Directive 2008/9/EC is valid if the applicant submits one aggregated dataset summarising all invoices, instead of individual datasets per invoice in the format required by the Member State of refund.
Facts: The Polish company applied electronically for a VAT refund in Germany (80,527.46 EUR) for 121 invoices but only provided a single summary dataset plus a separate tabular list; the German tax authority rejected it as formally invalid.
Legal dispute: Germany requires invoice‑level data to be submitted via the electronic portal using the officially prescribed dataset format. The applicant argues that the substantive requirements were met, the deficiencies were remediable, and the tax authority should have requested additional information under Article 20.
Referred questions:
- Whether EU law permits Member States to require a specific dataset format for each invoice and to reject an application that uses a summary instead.
- Whether a self‑compiled table containing all Article 8(2) data, sent electronically but outside the dataset structure, counts as a timely and complete application under Article 15(1).
Reason for referral: National law treats the missing invoice‑level datasets as rendering the application invalid and not submitted, but the court doubts compatibility with EU principles such as VAT neutrality, proportionality, and the interaction between the deadline in Article 15 and the ability to supply additional information under Article 20.

Article in the EU VAT Directive

Article 7, 8(2) and 15(1) of Council Directive 2008/9/EC

Facts and Background

The Polish company Czechanowicz Ekologia i Zieleń applied electronically in July 2022 for a German VAT refund of EUR 80,527.46 for 121 invoices from 2021, but submitted only one aggregated dataset plus a separate table, not individual invoice datasets.
The German tax authority rejected the application because invoice‑level data in the prescribed dataset format and invoice scans were missing; therefore the application was considered formally invalid.
The applicant sent the invoices by email on 30 September 2022, but this was not accepted since corrections must be made through the electronic portal and before the legal deadline.
A new, formally correct application was submitted on 8 December 2022, but it was late (deadline: 30 September 2022), so the authority rejected it.
The dispute concerns whether the first submission—though formally deficient—should still count as a valid application under EU law, raising questions about proportionality, VAT neutrality, and what “electronic refund application” under Directive 2008/9/EC requires.

Questions

Are Article 7 of Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State (‘Directive 2008/9/EC’), read in conjunction with Article 8(2) thereof, and Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/9/EC, to be interpreted as meaning that, in order for an application submitted via the electronic application procedure to be valid, a specific dataset format prescribed by the Member State of refund is required for each individual invoice, all the invoice details required under Article 8(2) of Directive 2008/9/EC must be sent in that dataset format, and a summary of invoice details in one dataset is not permitted?
Is an electronic refund application under Article 7 of Directive 2008/9/EC which, instead of the information for each individual invoice in the dataset format prescribed by the Member State of refund, is accompanied by a table of the invoices in respect of which refund is sought, compiled by the applicant itself, containing all the details specified in Article 8(2) of Directive 2008/9/EC and sent to the administrative authorities of the Member State of refund by electronic means, to be regarded as formally complete and submitted before the deadline within the meaning of the second sentence of Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/9/EC and to be examined by the tax authorities of the Member State of refund?

Source

Curia

ECJ Cases referred to

C‑294/11 – Elsacom
Cited regarding the strictness of the deadline for VAT refund applications under earlier VAT refund directives.
C‑562/17 – Nestrade
Also cited for the principle that the application deadline is a strict cut‑off and must be respected for validity.
C‑133/18 – Sea Chefs Cruise Services
Referred to on the same issue: timeliness and completeness of applications under EU VAT refund rules.
C‑346/19
Mentioned in the arguments: dealt with missing or incomplete invoice information in VAT refund applications and whether deficiencies can be corrected. The German authority argues it is not applicable here because, in that case, invoice data were partly present, while in the current case the annex was entirely lacking invoice‑level datasets.