Recent ECJ and General Court VAT Jurisprudence and Implications for EU Compliance – February 2026

Introduction

EU VAT jurisprudence from the Court of Justice (ECJ/CJEU) and—under the post‑reform allocation of jurisdiction for many VAT preliminary references—the General Court (EGC/General Court) continues to shape day‑to‑day compliance: invoice and evidence standards, deduction timing, exemption conditions, and the VAT treatment of “atypical” remuneration (penalty-like or statutory amounts).

This overview is based on VAT‑related postings on VATupdate.com during the relevant February 2026 period and adjacent posts that VATupdate surfaces in its EU case‑law agenda/tag feeds.

It combines:

Court rulings (judgments and orders),
Advocate General opinions,
“Facts and Questions released” items, and
Newly registered cases where VATupdate indicates that no substantive details are yet available,
together with practical implementation signals from consultant newsletters/comments published on VATupdate (and, where available, the related VATupdate podcast links).

ECJ and General Court Judgments (incl. Orders)

T‑575/24, Belgische Staat / FOD Financiën v Digipolis Antwerpen AG & District09 AG, General Court, judgment of 25 February 2026

VATupdate link: EGC T-575/24 (Digipolis) – Public Law body Held Liable for VAT on Telecommunication Services Provided

Issue: VAT liability of an intermunicipal/commissioning association supplying ICT/telematics services to members.
Question: Whether national “emanation theory”/administrative tolerance can treat such services as internal (non‑taxable), considering Articles 2, 9 and 13 VAT Directive and neutrality.
Decision: Services supplied for remuneration by the association to members fall within the scope of VAT; the association is a taxable person acting independently—member linkage does not, by itself, remove taxability.

T‑638/24, Finanzamt Österreich v D GmbH, General Court, judgment of 25 February 2026

VATupdate link: EGC T-638/24 (D GmbH) – VAT on Intra-Community Acquisitions Not Precluded by Errors

Issue: Interaction between Articles 40–41 (place of intra‑Community acquisition) and Article 203 (VAT shown on invoice) where invoicing errors occurred on purported exempt intra‑Community supplies.
Question: Whether VAT wrongly invoiced/paid in one Member State precludes taxation of the corresponding intra‑Community acquisition under Article 41, and the effect of invoice adjustments.
Decision: The judgment confirms that invoicing errors do not automatically prevent the Member State’s taxing rights under the acquisition rules; compliance failures can sustain acquisition VAT exposure.

T‑689/24, I. S.A. v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej, General Court, judgment of 11 February 2026

VATupdate link: EGC T-689/24 (Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej) – VAT deductible for the right period if you get the invoice before filing

Summary

Issue: Timing of input VAT deduction where invoices are received after the supply period but before filing the VAT return.
Question: Whether national rules can postpone the deduction right until physical receipt of the invoice, notwithstanding that the invoice is held when filing the return and substantive conditions are met.
Decision: The right to deduct arises when VAT becomes chargeable; where the invoice is available at filing, Member States cannot deny deduction in the proper period solely due to invoice receipt timing. [vatupdate.com]

T‑643/24, Credidam v Cristian General Serv SRL, General Court, judgment of 11 February 2026

VATupdate link: EGC T-643/24 (Credidam) – Unlicensed use of protected works is fully taxable with VAT on all remuneration

Summary

Issue: VAT treatment of statutory remuneration (including surcharges) for communication to the public of protected works without a licence. [vatupdate.com]
Question: Whether such remuneration constitutes consideration for a taxable supply of services, and whether the VAT base includes statutory multipliers/penalty components.
Decision: Unauthorized use can still correspond to a supply for consideration; VAT is due on the full remuneration, including statutory surcharges treated as part of the taxable amount.

C‑436/25 P, EXOIL Paliwa v Republic of Poland, ECJ, order of 20 January 2026

VATupdate link: ECJ VAT Case – C-436/25 (EXOIL Paliwa) – Order – Assessment of Appeal Admissibility and Jurisdiction – VATupdate

Issue: Procedural admissibility/jurisdiction in an appeal related to a VAT Directive transposition challenge directed at a Member State.
Question: Whether EU Courts have jurisdiction and whether the appeal is admissible where an action effectively targets national implementing rules rather than an EU act.
Decision: The order confirms manifest lack of EU judicial jurisdiction/manifestly unfounded appeal in this procedural posture.

Advocate General (AG) Opinions

T‑184/25, Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö v A Oy, AG Opinion of 25 February 2026

VATupdate link: EGC T-184/25 (Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö) – AG Opinion – VAT Exemptions for Credit Management: No Exemption for Former Lenders – VATupdate

Facts: A lender sells granted credit to another financial institution but retains “credit management” for consideration.
Question: Whether Article 135(1)(b) VAT Directive (management of credit by the person granting it) can cover management by a former lender after the sale; and, failing that, whether exemptions under 135(1)(c) or (d) may apply.
AG View: The published case framing indicates a restrictive reading focused on the “person granting” criterion and the boundaries between credit management/guarantees/debt transactions.

ECJ/EGC cases where the facts and questions are released (“Questions”)

T‑689/25, James Howden & Company, General Court, facts and questions released (VATupdate post February 2026)

VATupdate link: EGC VAT T‑689/25 – Questions – VAT exemption conditions for intra‑Community supplies and the role of VAT identification numbers

Facts: UK business purchased goods from Austria, shipped to Sweden; supplier charged Austrian VAT because the customer did not provide a non‑Austrian EU VAT ID at the time (later provided an Irish VAT ID said to be valid at the time); refund under Directive 2008/9 was refused.
Question: Whether the intra‑Community exemption (Article 138) and/or refund entitlement can be conditioned on VAT ID disclosure timing, and how invoice correction interacts with refund exclusion rules.

T‑859/25, Kabakum 3808, General Court, facts and questions released

VATupdate link: EGC T-859/25 (Kabakum 3808) – Questions – Non-cash contributions and the conditions for VAT registration and liability – VATupdate

Bullet‑point summary (mandatory)

Facts: Non‑cash contribution of immovable assets (offices) into a newly established company; questions arise around whether this is a transfer of a totality of assets and automatic VAT registration/liability effects under national practice.
Question: Interpretation of Article 19 VAT Directive (TOGC) and whether Member State practice may treat any non‑cash contribution by a VAT‑registered person as a non‑supply with automatic registration for the recipient without testing economic continuity/proportionality.

C‑914/25, Modelo Continente Hipermercados, General Court, questions released

VATupdate link: EGC – T-914/25 (Modelo Continente Hipermercados) – Questions – VAT adjustment on discount coupons; valid proof for consumers? – VATupdate

Facts: VATupdate flags the case as involving VAT adjustment issues linked to discount coupon mechanisms (consumer proof/validation).
Question: Examination of VAT adjustment mechanics for discount coupons and evidential requirements for consumers.

T‑903/25, Grotta Nuova, General Court, facts and questions released

VATupdate link: EGC T-903/25 (Grotta Nuova) – Questions – VAT Classification of Artistic Supplies – VATupdate

Facts: Commissioning of an art installation linked to a sports hall; dispute on whether the supply is a supply of goods vs services and how VAT rules (including “works of art” concepts) apply.
Question: VAT classification/taxable amount questions in the context of artistic commissions and relevant VAT Directive provisions (scope/classification and special art rules).

T‑915/25, Fundacja K., General Court, registration and (per VATupdate case feed) questions

VATupdate link: EGC T-915/25 (Fundacja K.) – Questions – Whether sub-licensing copyrights qualifies as a VAT-exempt cultural service – VATupdate

Facts: VATupdate indicates the dispute concerns whether sub‑licensing of copyrights may qualify as a VAT‑exempt cultural service.
Question: Scope of cultural exemptions and whether the transaction’s legal character (sub‑licence) can fall within exempt cultural services.

T‑880/25, Czechanowicz Ekologia i Zielen, General Court, facts and questions released

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

Facts: VAT refund claim under Directive 2008/9 in Germany: applicant submitted an aggregated dataset instead of invoice‑level datasets required by the portal; refund rejected as formally invalid.
Question: Whether Member States may require strict invoice‑level dataset formatting and reject applications using summaries, and how Article 15 deadlines interact with Article 20 “additional information” requests and neutrality/proportionality.

T‑851/25, Roenes, General Court, facts and questions released

VATupdate link: General Court VAT case T‑851/25 – Questions – Transfer of a Totality of Assets: Economic continuity vs supplier intention

Facts: Sale of a leased residential apartment complex (converted from offices) treated by seller as TOGC/non‑supply; tax authority treated seller as developer and taxed sale.
Question: Application of Article 19 TOGC where the asset is used for exempt rental activity and whether TOGC test is driven by objective economic continuity (property is let and transferred “as let”) or also by supplier’s intention.

Newly Registered ECJ and General Court VAT Cases (no substantive details yet)

T‑53/26, Central Europe Mark, ECJ/General Court – newly registered (details not yet released)

VATupdate link: VATupdate references “New ECJ VAT case T‑53/26 (Central Europe Mark) – No details known yet.”

T‑53/26 – Court: ECJ/General Court (as per VATupdate listing) – Description: VAT‑related case registered; details on facts and referred questions have not yet been released.

Practical Takeaways for EU VAT Compliance (February 2026)

Re‑validate “public sector/shared services” VAT positions: Where ICT/telematics services are provided across public bodies or member‑based associations, reassess taxable person independence and ensure VAT invoicing/charging is defensible.
Tighten cross‑border acquisition controls: Intra‑Community goods flows remain exposed where invoicing is wrong or exemption evidence is weak; strengthen VAT ID capture, exemption documentation, and invoice correction governance.
Update deduction timing playbooks: Where invoices arrive after period‑end but before filing, align ERP posting, cut‑off, and filing procedures to secure deduction in the correct period and preserve evidence of invoice availability.
Review “penalty/statutory fee” VAT coding: Amounts paid for unauthorized use of rights/content may be treated as consideration; assess whether local “damages/outside scope” assumptions remain sustainable.
Refund process resilience (Directive 2008/9): The German portal format dispute highlights that VAT refund outcomes can turn on data‑format compliance; validate that refund submissions meet invoice‑level dataset requirements and that remediation steps remain within statutory deadlines.
Monitor implementation divergence via VATupdate consultant notes: VATupdate’s “comments” posts (often sourced from advisors) provide early signals on local authority responses—use them to anticipate audit focus areas.
Interaction with ViDA (non‑speculative): Several themes—invoice timing, invoice‑level data integrity, and portal formatting—are directionally consistent with the broader EU shift to more structured, digital VAT controls; ensure projects addressing e‑invoicing/digital reporting also support evidence retention and “right‑period” deduction logic.

Conclusion

February 2026’s VAT jurisprudence reinforces three practical trends: (i) substance and independence tests remain central for public‑sector and member‑based structures (Digipolis), (ii) formal invoicing errors do not neutralize cross‑border VAT exposure (D GmbH), and (iii) procedural and evidential rules directly drive cash‑flow outcomes, notably for deduction timing (Dyrektor KIS) and refund formatting (Czechanowicz).

For compliance leaders, the key is to combine the courts’ direction with Member State reaction signals—including VATupdate’s consultant‑sourced commentaries—and to embed these learnings into AP/AR controls, cross‑border documentation packs, and refund submission governance. Continued monitoring of VATupdate.com postings (and associated podcasts where provided) remains a practical way to track both legal change and operational impact as cases progress from registration to questions, opinions, and final rulings.