Comments on T-221/25: EU General Court confirms (former) Belgian VAT treatment of travel outside the EU

The General Court of the European Union confirmed that Belgium was historically entitled to continue levying VAT on travel agency services for non-EU travel, based on a “standstill provision” that allowed Member States to continue existing taxation practices.
The ruling clarified that an explicit national derogation in legislation is not required for the standstill provision to apply; implicit confirmation within the legal framework is sufficient, even if subsequent legislative amendments remove explicit exclusions, as long as the taxation system’s essence remains unchanged.
This judgment largely resolves a long-standing dispute, although Belgium has, since May 1, 2014, aligned its legislation with the EU VAT Directive, explicitly exempting travel agency services for non-EU travel.

Click on the logo to visit the website

Implicit VAT taxation for non-EU travel services by agents is valid

Belgian VAT Dispute and Legislative Ambiguity: TUI Belgium sought VAT refunds for non-EU travel services from 2004-2014, arguing that a 2000 Belgian law change, which removed an explicit exclusion of travel agencies from VAT exemption, rendered these services exempt. The Belgian tax authority disagreed, leading to a referral to the ECJ to clarify if the EU’s “standstill” clause requires an express national legal provision for continued taxation and if a shift from explicit to implicit taxation constitutes a fundamental change in the law.
ECJ Ruling on Explicit Provision Requirement: The Court found that the “standstill” clause does not mandate an explicit national legal provision to continue taxing services. Member States are free to choose their legislative technique, provided it is clear and precise, and maintaining taxation implicitly where it existed before 1978 is acceptable.
ECJ Ruling on Implied Taxation Changes: The Court concluded that replacing an explicit exclusion with provisions that only implicitly maintain tax liability does not, by itself, mean the legislation has fundamentally changed or is based on a different logic. This aligns with previous jurisprudence on “standstill” clauses and the special VAT scheme for travel agencies.