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

📌 Judgments

T-184/25 — Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö (A Oy)

Judgment — General Court (Finland)

• Facts & Background: On 17 June 2026, the General Court delivered its judgment in this Finnish reference concerning credit management services. A Finnish bank (A Oy) had sold mortgage loans to its subsidiary (B Oy) but continued to manage those very loans on behalf of the assignee for a fee. The Finnish tax authority (Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö) considered these management services taxable, while the taxpayer argued for exemption. The dispute was referred to Luxembourg by the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court, seeking clarification on the correct interpretation of the exemption for “management of credit by the person granting it” under EU VAT law. [vatupdate.com]
• Legal Issue & Question: The referring court asked whether Article 135(1)(b) of Directive 2006/112/EC — exempting the granting, negotiation and management of credit by the person granting it — extends to a situation where the original lender, after selling the receivables to another financial institution, continues to manage them under a separate remunerated contract with the assignee. The interaction with Article 135(1)(d) (deposits, current accounts, payments, transfers, debts and negotiable instruments, excluding debt collection) was also decisive. Prior case-law on strict interpretation of financial exemptions (e.g. SDC, MKG-Kraftfahrzeuge-Factoring, AXA UK) framed the analysis. [vatupdate.com]
• Outcome: The General Court ruled that credit management services invoiced by the original lender to a third-party assignee are not VAT-exempt. Exemptions must be interpreted strictly; the exemption for “management of credits by the person who granted them” is confined to the original lender-borrower relationship and cannot be extended once the receivables have been transferred. Extending it would violate fiscal neutrality, since equivalent services provided by any other manager would be taxable. Separate invoicing between transferor and transferee also removes the practical justification (difficulty of determining the taxable amount) underlying the exemption. [vatupdate.com]

T-444/25 — Cavert

Judgment — General Court (Netherlands)

• Facts & Background: On 10 June 2026, the General Court delivered its judgment in the Dutch case T-444/25 (Cavert), concerning VAT exemptions for care services supplied within a Dutch VAT group (“fiscale eenheid”). The dispute focused on whether the exemption for public-interest activities — such as hospital care, welfare, socio-cultural services and education — could apply to a supply made by a VAT group where only one member of that group individually held the necessary official recognition (“erkenning”) or qualifying status required by the exemption provisions of the VAT Directive. [vatupdate.com]
• Legal Issue & Question: The core legal question concerned the interaction between Article 11 (VAT grouping — single taxable person fiction) and Article 132 (exemptions for certain activities in the public interest) of Directive 2006/112/EC. Specifically: does the “single taxable person” fiction extend the recognition/status of one group member to the entire VAT group, or must the individual entity actually supplying the exempt service itself meet all substantive conditions — including recognition as a hospital, welfare body or educational establishment — for the exemption to apply? [vatupdate.com]
• Outcome: The General Court ruled that VAT groups are not equivalent to a single legal entity for the purpose of Article 132 exemptions. Where the Directive refers to “bodies”, “hospitals” or “establishments”, it means legal entities that individually satisfy the exemption’s substantive conditions. Consequently, the specific member of the VAT group supplying the service must itself hold the required recognition; membership in a VAT group does not automatically extend exemption eligibility to all members. The ruling reinforces the strict interpretation of public-interest exemptions and prevents VAT-group structuring from circumventing recognition requirements. [vatupdate.com]

T-198/25 — G. Kft

Judgment — General Court (Hungary)

• Facts & Background: On 3 June 2026, the General Court released its judgment in the Hungarian case T-198/25 (G. Kft). G. Kft. had improperly invoiced VAT on deposit fees. After an initial tax inspection closed without any VAT finding, the company sought a new inspection to correct historical VAT, invoking “new facts” (unaccounted invoices, subsequent rulings). The Hungarian tax authority rejected the request, arguing that these were not genuinely new facts because the taxpayer had prior opportunities to self-correct, both before and during the inspection, and through complaint procedures. [vatupdate.com]
• Legal Issue & Question: The General Court had to decide whether Hungarian national legislation, restricting new inspections of closed periods to cases where genuinely new facts unknown to the taxpayer emerge, is compatible with EU law principles — namely effectiveness, tax neutrality and proportionality — as regards the adjustment of improperly invoiced VAT under Articles 167, 168, 179, 180, 183, 250 and 252 of Directive 2006/112/EC. A key point was whether such procedural limits infringe the taxpayer’s right to correct VAT even in the absence of any risk of loss of tax revenue. [vatupdate.com]
• Outcome: The Court ruled that EU law does not preclude such national legislation, provided the taxable person had a reasonable period to exercise their right to adjust the VAT through other available means. G. Kft. had had over three years — including self-correction opportunities pre- and mid-inspection and complaint procedures — which the Court found reasonable. Fiscal neutrality is an interpretative principle, not an override of legitimate procedural rules that are not excessively difficult. The national rule was found proportionate: the taxpayer was not absolutely denied adjustment, only channelled through defined procedural gateways. [vatupdate.com]

T-224/25 — VÁM4ALL (Customs)

Judgment — General Court (Hungary, customs valuation / import VAT)

• Facts & Background: On 3 June 2026, the General Court issued its judgment in T-224/25 (VÁM4ALL Kft.), a Hungarian customs and import-VAT case. VÁM4ALL Kft. acted as indirect customs representative for imports of bulk goods from China. The company failed to produce proof of actual payment for the goods, prompting the Hungarian customs authorities to reject the declared transaction value and to also exclude the secondary valuation methods for lack of essential product data. Customs then applied a residual method based on a national database, using the simple arithmetic mean of unit prices of comparable goods (same origin, same TARIC code, 90-day window). [vatupdate.com]
• Legal Issue & Question: The referring Hungarian court asked the CJEU to interpret Articles 15 and 74 of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 (UCC) and Articles 140 and 144 of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447. Key questions: must an indirect customs representative provide proof of actual payment on request; may customs authorities reject transaction value and secondary methods for lack of information (even without exercising powers to inspect the goods at clearance); and is a residual method based on national database averages of comparable goods a permissible “fall-back” method compatible with the prohibition of arbitrary or fictitious values? [vatupdate.com]
• Outcome: The Court affirmed that indirect customs representatives must produce all documents (including proof of payment) upon request, and that customs authorities may reject the declared transaction value and exclude secondary methods where sufficient data is not provided. The residual method used — arithmetic mean of unit prices of comparable goods from a national database within a 90-day window — was held to be an appropriate “fall-back” method compliant with EU customs law. Import-VAT exposure follows the customs value so determined. The judgment reinforces the evidentiary burden on indirect representatives and the flexibility of Article 74 UCC. [vatupdate.com]

📌 AG Opinions

C-308/25 — Isolanti Group

Advocate General Opinion — CJEU (Italy)

• Facts & Background: On 11 June 2026, the Advocate General delivered his Opinion in the Italian reference C-308/25 (Isolanti Group). The case concerns Italy’s simplified tax-dispute resolution mechanism introduced by Law No 197/2022, which allows taxpayers to close pending tax disputes — including VAT disputes — by paying only a percentage of the amount originally assessed, together with waivers of penalties and default interest. The referring Italian court questioned whether such a broad amnesty-style mechanism, applied indiscriminately to all pending disputes regardless of duration, amount, or nature of infringement, is compatible with EU law obligations to ensure full and effective VAT collection. [vatupdate.com]
• Legal Issue & Question: The reference invokes Article 4(3) TEU (duty of sincere cooperation and effective collection of EU own resources), together with Articles 2 and 273 of Directive 2006/112/EC (obligation to ensure correct collection of VAT and to combat evasion) and the principle of tax neutrality. Central questions: does the Italian mechanism undermine the Member State’s obligation to collect VAT in full? Does the lack of discretion for tax authorities or courts to reject settlement on substantive grounds infringe EU law? And does excluding import VAT from the mechanism breach “external” fiscal neutrality? [vatupdate.com]
• AG’s Proposed Answer: The AG proposes that EU law precludes the Italian mechanism. It structurally undermines full VAT collection, allowing taxpayers to extinguish debts for a fraction of the amount due. Its broad, non-discretionary scope encourages evasion by creating expectations of future amnesties. It also violates fiscal neutrality — both internally (favouring settling taxpayers over compliant ones) and externally (excluding import VAT discriminates against imports). The AG rejects Italy’s justification of court-backlog reduction as disproportionate to the measure’s scope, and recommends against limiting the temporal effects of the forthcoming judgment. [vatupdate.com]

T-383/25 — Segelbootwartung

Advocate General Opinion — General Court (Germany, customs / import VAT)

• Facts & Background: On 3 June 2026, the AG delivered his Opinion in T-383/25 (Segelbootwartung). A Swiss resident sailed a non-Union sailing boat into Germany for maintenance and repair works, without presenting it to customs and without any inward-processing authorisation. German customs subsequently levied import duties and import VAT. The boat was then re-exported without ever having been used to transport persons or goods within the EU. The owner challenged both the duties and the VAT, arguing that mere repair services should be distinct from an “importation” and that any customs debt might have been extinguished under Article 124 UCC. [vatupdate.com]
• Legal Issue & Question: The German Federal Fiscal Court asked whether (i) a means of transport enters the EU’s “economic network” — triggering the chargeable event for import VAT under Articles 2(1)(d), 30 and 70 of Directive 2006/112/EC — when only maintenance/repair services are performed on it without any use for transport; and (ii) whether such maintenance or repair works constitute “use” within the meaning of Article 124(1)(k) UCC, thereby preventing extinction of the customs debt, even where the good is re-exported without transport use. The interaction with Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 is central. [vatupdate.com]
• AG’s Proposed Answer: The AG opined that the mere physical entry of a non-Union good into the EU triggers import VAT, since it entails entry into the EU’s economic network — unless placed under a special customs procedure such as inward processing. Only a retroactive inward-processing authorisation could avoid this outcome. Similarly, maintenance and repair operations on a non-Union good, absent an inward-processing authorisation, constitute “use” for the purposes of Article 124(1)(k) UCC, meaning the customs debt is not extinguished. This strict reading aims to prevent abuse and safeguard EU own resources. [vatupdate.com]

📌 Preliminary Questions Referred

T-309/26 — Agora Hospitality

Questions Referred — General Court (Belgium)

• Facts & Background: Published on VATupdate.com on 23 June 2026, this Belgian reference concerns a VAT dispute between Agora Hospitality SA and the Belgian State regarding the treatment of bundled hotel services — typically packages combining accommodation, catering, meeting rooms and other seminar-related supplies. The referring Tribunal de première instance du Brabant wallon seeks CJEU guidance on whether such packages should be split into separate supplies, each taxed at its own applicable VAT rate, or treated as a single complex supply subject to a uniform (standard) rate. The case has significant implications for the Belgian hospitality and MICE sectors. [vatupdate.com]
• Legal Issue & Question: The reference invokes Article 1(2), second subparagraph (each transaction to be considered individually), Article 2(1)(c) (scope of VAT on services for consideration), Article 24(1) (definition of supply of services), Article 44 (place-of-supply rule for B2B services), Article 96 (standard rate), and Articles 98(1)–(2) (reduced rates) of Directive 2006/112/EC. The Court is asked to draw the dividing line between principal/ancillary supplies and single composite supplies, in light of established case-law on complex supplies (e.g. CPP, Levob, Bog and Others, Stadion Amsterdam). [vatupdate.com]
• Question Raised / Expected Impact: The referred questions ask whether a hotel-organised seminar package must be regarded as a single supply — and if so, at which rate — or whether each element (accommodation, meals, meeting space, ancillary services) retains its own VAT treatment and rate. A secondary question addresses the place-of-supply consequences under Article 44 where the recipient is a taxable person established in another Member State. The forthcoming ruling will be highly relevant for hotel groups, conference organisers and travel operators managing bundled B2B offerings across the EU. [vatupdate.com]

📌 New ECJ Cases Registered

T-361/26 — Sandoz Hungária

2. Interesting Databases & Roadtrips 

• Roadtrip through ECJ Cases – Focus on “Exemption related to welfare and social security work” (Art. 132(1)(g)) [vatupdate.com]
• Roadtrip through ECJ Cases – Focus on “VAT Grouping” (Art. 11 of EU VAT Directive) [vatupdate.com]
• Roadtrip through ECJ Cases – Focus on “Exemption for hospital & medical care” (Art. 132(1)(b)) [vatupdate.com]
• Roadtrip through ECJ Cases – Focus on “Exemption – Financial transactions – Credits and negotiation of credits” (Art. 135(1)(b)) [vatupdate.com]
• Roadtrip through ECJ Cases – Focus on “Exemption – Financial transactions – deposit and current accounts, payments, transfers, debts, cheques and other negotiable instruments” (Art. 135(1)(d)) [vatupdate.com]
• ECJ/General Court VAT Cases – Pending cases (last update: 21 June 2026) [vatupdate.com]
• ECJ & General Court VAT Cases decided in 2026 (last update: 21 June 2026) [vatupdate.com]

3. Other European Court VAT Newsitems 

• Recent ECJ and General Court VAT Jurisprudence and Implications for EU Compliance – May 2026 [vatupdate.com]
• Agenda of the ECJ/General Court VAT cases – 1 Judgment till July 16, 2026 [vatupdate.com]
• Comments on EGC case T-184/25: Transferred Loan Management Is Not VAT Exempt [vatupdate.com]
• Comments on T-184/25 (A) – Management of Securitised Mortgages is Taxable [vatupdate.com]
• VAT Applies to Management of Transferred Loans, Court Rules [vatupdate.com]
• Comments on T-444/25 (Cavert) – General Court Rules VAT Groups Are Not Single Legal Entities [vatupdate.com]
• Flashback on ECJ Cases C-342/87 (Genius Holding) – Right to deduct VAT only for tax actually due [vatupdate.com]
• EU VAT Law: Distinguishing Goods and Services in Mixed Supplies [vatupdate.com]
• ECJ Requires Highest Courts to Explain Refusal to Refer Questions for Preliminary Ruling [vatupdate.com]
• CJEU Expands Country-of-Origin Principle for Online Services [vatupdate.com]
• ECJ VAT Case Law Examples: Strict Limits on Treating Multiple Elements as One Supply [vatupdate.com]
• General Court case T-99/25: EU Court Annuls ECA Refusal, Clearing Witness Testimony in EPPO Probe [vatupdate.com]
• EPRS Study: The Future of the EU VAT Reverse Charge Mechanism [vatupdate.com]