European Court T-356/25 (Rapera) – Judgment – Tax representatives’ direct VAT liability confirmed; joint liability requires proportionality

On 8 July 2026, the General Court of the European Union delivered its judgment in Case T-356/25 (Rapera), a preliminary reference from the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis (Administrative Court of First Instance of Thessaloniki, Greece), concerning the compatibility with Articles 204 and 205 of Directive 2006/112/EC of national rules automatically making a fiscal representative jointly and severally liable for the VAT of a non-established taxable person. [eur-lex.europa.eu], [infocuria…..europa.eu]

Context: Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Common system of VAT – Tax representative appointed as the person liable for payment of VAT – Article 204 of Directive 2006/112/EC – Joint and several liability – Article 205 of Directive 2006/112 – National legislation appointing the tax representative as liable for payment of VAT and providing for his or her joint and several liability – Proportionality

Summary

Issue: The case revolves around a Greek customs agent (AY) appointed as a “tax representative” for an Italian company (O). AY is facing precautionary measures for unpaid VAT by O, and the core issue is whether AY can be held liable (either as the primary person liable or jointly and severally liable) for O’s VAT debt under EU VAT Directive articles 204 and 205, especially given AY’s limited involvement in O’s economic activities.
Questions to the Court: The Greek court asked four main questions:
- Does Article 205 of the VAT Directive and the principle of proportionality preclude a national law holding a tax representative jointly and severally liable for VAT without examining their involvement, knowledge of non-payment, or good faith?
- Can a tax representative be held primarily liable for VAT under Article 204 if they are not involved in the taxable person’s activity, and is a national law automatically deeming them liable without such examination contrary to this?
- Does the answer to the above questions differ based on which VAT identification number (of the Member State of establishment or the Member State where VAT is due) the transaction was carried out under?
- Can a person be simultaneously held liable for VAT under Article 204(1) and jointly and severally liable under Article 205?
Decision and Argumentation (Question 2 – Primary Liability): The General Court decided that Article 204 of the VAT Directive does not preclude a tax representative from being deemed primarily liable for VAT even if they are not involved in the taxable transactions of the principal, provided they were properly appointed as such. The Court reasoned that Article 204 allows Member States discretion in setting appointment conditions and that this mechanism aims to ensure efficient VAT collection by providing an accessible interlocutor in the Member State. Requiring participation in transactions would limit its effectiveness.
Decision and Argumentation (Question 1 – Joint and Several Liability): The General Court ruled that Article 205 of the VAT Directive, read in light of the principle of proportionality, precludes holding a tax representative (who is not primarily liable under Article 204) jointly and severally liable for VAT if neither the tax administration nor the court can assess their involvement in the principal’s economic activity, their knowledge of non-payment, or their good faith and diligence. The Court emphasized that measures must not go beyond what is necessary to protect public revenue and that unconditional strict liability would be disproportionate.
Decision and Argumentation (Questions 3 & 4 – VAT ID and Dual Liability):
- Question 3: The Court found that the specific VAT identification number used for the transaction (of establishment or where VAT is due) is not decisive for the answers to the first and second questions, as it doesn’t inherently alter the tax representative’s influence or involvement.
- Question 4: The Court concluded that a person appointed as primarily liable for VAT under Article 204 cannot also be jointly and severally liable under Article 205. This is because Article 205 explicitly states that the jointly and severally liable person must be “other than the person liable for payment of VAT.”

Articles of the VAT Directive 2006/112/EC discussed

The articles of the EU VAT Directive 2006/112/EC being discussed are Articles 204, 205, 193, 213, and 214.

Here is the literal text of each discussed article as provided in the document:

Article 204 of the VAT Directive provides:
‘1. Where, pursuant to Articles 193 to 197 and Articles 199 and 200, the person liable for payment of VAT is a taxable person who is not established in the Member State in which the VAT is due, Member States may allow that person to appoint a tax representative as the person liable for payment of the VAT. Furthermore, where the taxable transaction is carried out by a taxable person who is not established in the Member State in which the VAT is due and no legal instrument exists, with the country in which that taxable person is established or has his seat, relating to mutual assistance similar in scope to that provided for in Directive 76/308/EEC and Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003, Member States may take measures to provide that the person liable for payment of VAT is to be a tax representative appointed by the non-established taxable person. However, Member States may not apply the option referred to in the second subparagraph to a taxable person within the meaning of point (1) of Article 358a who has opted for the special scheme for services supplied by taxable persons not established within the Community.
2. The option under the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 shall be subject to the conditions and procedures laid down by each Member State.’

Article 205 of the VAT Directive provides:
‘In the situations referred to in Articles 193 to 200 and Articles 202, 203 and 204, Member States may provide that a person other than the person liable for payment of VAT is to be held jointly and severally liable for payment of VAT.’

Article 193 of the VAT Directive provides:
(As referred to in the judgment, but the full text is not provided. The judgment states: “Although Article 193 of that directive provides, as the basic rule, that VAT is payable by any taxable person carrying out a taxable supply of goods or services, it nevertheless states that other persons may or must be liable for payment of VAT in the situations referred to in Articles 194 to 199b and 202 thereof (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 April 2025, Genzyński, C‑278/24, EU:C:2025:299, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited).”)

Article 213(1) of the VAT Directive is worded as follows:
‘Every taxable person shall state when his activity as a taxable person commences, changes or ceases. …’

Article 214(1) of the VAT Directive provides:
‘Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the following persons are identified by means of an individual number:
(a) every taxable person … who within their respective territory carries out supplies of goods or services in respect of which VAT is deductible …;
(b) every taxable person, or non-taxable legal person, who makes intra-Community acquisitions of goods subject to VAT …;

Questions

The referring court asked the Court, in essence: [eur-lex.europa.eu], [eur-lex.europa.eu]

Must Article 205 of Directive 2006/112/EC and the principle of proportionality be interpreted as precluding a national provision such as Article 55(d) of Law 2859/2000, under which a person — irrespective of whether national law designates that person as a fiscal “representative” (antiprósopos) or “agent” (ekprósopos) — is jointly and severally liable for payment of VAT, where that person is not required to keep records or issue documents relating to the transactions of its principal (a taxable person established in another Member State) but merely submits the corresponding VAT returns, and where the national provision does not allow the tax authority (or the competent court) to examine (i) whether that person is involved in the economic activity of the taxable person, (ii) whether it knew or ought to have known that the VAT on the relevant, an earlier or a subsequent transaction would go unpaid, and (iii) whether it acted in good faith and did everything reasonably within its power?
Under Article 204 of Directive 2006/112/EC, can the fiscal representative of a taxable person subject to VAT established in another Member State be held liable as debtor if the tax representative is not involved in the taxable person’s activity? Is that provision contrary to a national provision such as Article 35(1)(c) of Law 2859/2000, under which a tax representative is automatically considered to be liable, without the tax authority or the competent court being empowered to examine whether that person is involved in the economic activity of the taxable person?
Does the answer to the preceding questions differ depending on whether the transaction for which VAT is due is carried out under the tax identification number of the Member State in which the taxable person is established, or under the tax identification number of the Member State in which the VAT is due?
Are Articles 204(1) and 205 of Directive 2006/112/EC to be interpreted as meaning that a person may be held liable under both provisions simultaneously, that is to say, as a debtor under Article 204(1) and as jointly and severally liable under Article 205?

AG Opinion

None

Decision

1. Article 204 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2019/1995 of 21 November 2019,

must be interpreted as not precluding a tax representative of a taxable person established in another Member State from being regarded as liable for payment of the VAT, within the meaning of that provision, even though that tax representative is not involved in the taxable transactions carried out by the taxable person, provided that that tax representative has been appointed as such by that taxable person.

2. Article 205 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2019/1995, read in the light of the principle of proportionality,

must be interpreted as precluding a tax representative who is not appointed as the person liable for payment of the value added tax (VAT) due by a taxable person established in another Member State, but who is responsible for carrying out, on behalf of a such a taxable person, VAT filing obligations, without having to keep accounts or issue accounting documents relating to the transactions made by that taxable person, from being held jointly and severally liable for the payment of the VAT due, where neither the tax administration nor the competent court is empowered to determine whether he or she is involved in the economic activity of the taxable person, whether he or she knew or ought to have known that the tax would go unpaid and whether he or she acted in good faith and took all the measures reasonably due to ensure compliance with the VAT obligations.

3. The fact that the transaction in respect of which VAT is due was carried out under the individual VAT identification number allocated to the taxable person by the Member State in which he or she is established or under that allocated by the Member State in which the VAT is due cannot be decisive for the answers in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the operative part of the present judgment.

4. Article 205 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2019/1995, read in the light of Article 204(1) of that directive,

must be interpreted as meaning that a person appointed as the person liable for payment of the VAT under that Article 204 cannot also be jointly and severally liable under Article 205 of that directive.

Source

Curia

Reference to other ECJ Cases

ALTI (C‑4/20): Examined national rules on tax representatives’ joint and several liability for VAT, emphasizing proportionality and effective VAT collection, especially for non-established taxable persons.
U.I. (Indirect customs representative) (C‑714/20): Focused on the liability of an indirect customs representative for import VAT, assessing whether national law imposing such liability was compatible with EU customs and VAT directives.
Makeleio and Zougla (C‑555/23 and C‑556/23): Reiterated the division of jurisdiction between EU and national courts, clarifying that the EU judicature guides national courts in interpreting EU law.
Genzyński (C‑278/24): Clarified the purpose of VAT Directive Articles 193-204 in identifying the person liable for VAT, ensuring efficient collection from the most appropriate party in diverse situations.
Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ (C‑1/21): Concerned the identification of the person liable for VAT, particularly when supplies involve multiple parties or cross-border elements, aiming for effective tax collection.
Vlaamse Oliemaatschappij (C‑499/10): Addressed the proportionality of national measures imposing joint and several liability for VAT, ruling against strict liability that doesn’t allow demonstrating lack of fault.
KONREO (C‑276/24): Explored the Member States’ power under Article 205 VAT Directive to determine conditions for joint and several liability, stressing compliance with general principles like proportionality and legal certainty.
Netto Supermarkt (C‑271/06): Emphasized that good faith and due diligence are crucial when assessing if a person can be held liable for VAT owed by another, especially in cases of tax evasion.
Ablessio (C‑527/11): Discussed the purpose of VAT identification numbers under Article 214 of the VAT Directive, highlighting their role in ensuring the proper functioning of the VAT system and facilitating controls.

Newsletters

VATupdate.com – ECJ/General Court VAT Cases – Pending cases [vatupdate.com]

Join the Linkedin Group on ECJ/CJEU/General Court VAT Cases, click HERE
VATupdate.com – Your FREE source of information on ECJ VAT Cases

Podcasts & briefing documents: VAT concepts explained through ECJ/CJEU cases on Spotify

Briefing Document: European Court Delimits Scope of Tax Representative VAT Liability

Case Name: [Rapera] (fictitious name) Citation: Judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber, sitting with five Judges) of 8 July 2026, Case T‑356/25 Subject Matter: Taxation – Common system of VAT – Tax representative appointed as the person liable for payment of VAT – Joint and several liability – Proportionality – Interpretation of Articles 204 and 205 of Directive 2006/112/EC (the VAT Directive).

Executive Summary

This judgment by the General Court clarifies the scope of VAT liability for tax representatives appointed by non-established taxable persons within the EU, particularly concerning the distinction between being primarily liable for VAT (Article 204 VAT Directive) and being jointly and severally liable (Article 205 VAT Directive).

The Court ruled that:

Primary Liability (Art. 204): A Member State may allow a tax representative to be appointed as the person liable for VAT, even if they are not involved in the taxable transactions, provided they are formally appointed as such. This aims to ensure efficient VAT collection by providing a local interlocutor.
Joint and Several Liability (Art. 205): A national provision imposing unconditional joint and several liability on a tax representative (who is not primarily liable under Art. 204) is disproportionate and thus precluded by EU law. Such liability requires the possibility for the tax representative to demonstrate good faith, diligence, and lack of involvement in tax evasion by the principal.
Dual Liability (Art. 204 & 205): A tax representative cannot be both primarily liable for VAT (under Article 204) and jointly and severally liable for the same VAT debt (under Article 205), as Article 205 explicitly applies to a person “other than the person liable for payment of VAT.”
VAT Identification Numbers: The specific VAT identification number used (whether from the Member State of establishment or where VAT is due) does not alter these fundamental principles of liability.

The judgment underscores the principle of proportionality, preventing Member States from imposing “strict joint and several liability” where a tax representative has no influence over the principal’s actions or where their good faith cannot be assessed.

Case Details

Court: General Court (Fifth Chamber, sitting with five Judges)
Date of Judgment: 8 July 2026
Parties: AY (customs agent, applicant) vs. Anexartiti Archi Dimosion Esodon (Independent Revenue Authority, Greece; AADE, defendant).
Referring Court: Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis (Administrative Court of First Instance, Thessaloniki, Greece).

Legal Framework

European Union Law:

Council Directive 2006/112/EC (VAT Directive):Article 204(1): “Where… the person liable for payment of VAT is a taxable person who is not established in the Member State in which the VAT is due, Member States may allow that person to appoint a tax representative as the person liable for payment of the VAT.” Member States have discretion over conditions and procedures (Art. 204(2)).
Article 205: “In the situations referred to in Articles 193 to 200 and Articles 202, 203 and 204, Member States may provide that a person other than the person liable for payment of VAT is to be held jointly and severally liable for payment of VAT.”

Greek Law (as relevant to the case):

Nomos 2859/2000 – VAT Code:Article 35(1)(c): Designated the tax representative of a non-established taxable person as liable for payment of VAT in certain situations.
Article 36(4)(d) and (e): Required non-established taxable persons to appoint a tax representative. In the case of EU-established taxable persons, the representative was not required to keep accounts or issue accounting documents.
Article 55: Established joint and several liability for certain persons, including tax representatives (as per Article 36(7)).
Nomos 5104/2024 – Code of Tax Procedure: Clarified that a tax agent is not responsible for fulfilling or failing to fulfill the tax obligations of the taxpayer.

Background to the Dispute

AY, a customs agent in Greece, was registered as the tax representative for O, an Italian company. O held both an Italian and a Greek VAT identification number and stored goods in Greece. AY’s mandate included filing periodic VAT declarations and paying VAT on O’s behalf, as well as customs formalities.

Following an inspection, the AADE found that O’s Greek business had failed to pay over EUR 3.3 million in VAT. The AADE imposed precautionary measures (e.g., freezing deposits) against both O and AY, claiming AY was jointly and severally liable under Greek law.

AY disputed her liability, stating she merely submitted VAT returns and paid tax, but did not keep accounts, enter into contracts, or have knowledge of O’s transactions beyond her specific mandate. She argued that she was not involved in O’s economic activity and therefore should not be held liable. The referring Greek court sought guidance from the General Court on the interpretation of EU VAT law regarding tax representatives’ liability.

Questions Referred and General Court’s Rulings

The referring court posed four questions to the General Court, which were considered in the following order:

5.1. Second Question: Primary VAT Liability without Involvement in Transactions (Article 204)

Question: Can a tax representative of a taxable person established in another Member State be held liable as a debtor under Article 204 of the VAT Directive, even if not involved in the taxable transactions carried out by the taxable person?
Court’s Analysis:Article 204(1) allows Member States to permit the appointment of a tax representative as the person liable for VAT, and Article 204(2) grants Member States discretion over the conditions and procedures of such an appointment.
The VAT Directive itself does not define “tax representative” or require their participation in transactions for them to be appointed as liable.
The objective of Article 204 is the “efficient collection of VAT,” as it provides the tax administration with “an interlocutor in the Member State concerned… who is more easily accessible than the non-established taxable person.” (Para 39)
Requiring participation in transactions would restrict the scope and effectiveness of this option, hindering efficient VAT recovery.
Member States must observe general EU law principles, including proportionality, but “the absence of such conditions or procedures is, in itself, contrary to that directive.” (Para 44)
Court’s Ruling (Operative Part 1): Article 204 of the VAT Directive “must be interpreted as not precluding a tax representative of a taxable person established in another Member State from being regarded as liable for payment of the VAT, within the meaning of that provision, even though that tax representative is not involved in the taxable transactions carried out by the taxable person, provided that that tax representative has been appointed as such by that taxable person.”

5.2. First Question: Joint and Several Liability and Proportionality (Article 205)

Question: Does Article 205 of the VAT Directive and the principle of proportionality preclude national law from imposing joint and several liability on a tax representative (not primarily liable under Art. 204) who merely submits VAT returns, without the tax authority or court being able to assess their involvement, knowledge of non-payment, or good faith/due diligence?
Court’s Analysis:The Greek law (Article 55 of the VAT Code) imposed “unconditionally” worded joint and several liability. (Para 48)
Article 205 allows Member States to provide for joint and several liability but requires observance of proportionality.
“national measures which bring about, in practice, a system of strict joint and several liability are excessive in relation to that objective.” (Para 52)
It would be “disproportionate to hold that person unconditionally liable for the shortfall in tax caused by acts of a third party over which he or she has no influence whatsoever.” (Para 52)
EU law does not preclude requiring a person to “take every step which could reasonably be required of him or her to satisfy himself or herself that the transaction… does not result in his or her participation in tax evasion.” (Para 53)
The ability to assess a tax representative’s involvement, knowledge, and good faith/diligence is crucial. Without this, attributing tax revenue loss to such a representative is disproportionate.
Court’s Ruling (Operative Part 2): Article 205 of the VAT Directive, “read in the light of the principle of proportionality, must be interpreted as precluding a tax representative who is not appointed as the person liable for payment of the value added tax (VAT) due… from being held jointly and severally liable… where neither the tax administration nor the competent court is empowered to determine whether he or she is involved in the economic activity of the taxable person, whether he or she knew or ought to have known that the tax would go unpaid and whether he or she acted in good faith and took all the measures reasonably due to ensure compliance with the VAT obligations.”

5.3. Third Question: Influence of VAT Identification Numbers

Question: Does the specific VAT identification number used (from the Member State of establishment or where VAT is due) impact the answers to the first and second questions?
Court’s Analysis:VAT identification numbers are for ensuring the proper functioning of the VAT system, proving tax status, and facilitating inspections.
However, the use of one VAT ID over another does not inherently confer more or less influence on the tax representative regarding the principal’s actions, nor does it automatically imply awareness of the principal’s transactions.
For Article 204 liability, the existence of one of the situations described in the Directive (Articles 193-197, 199-200) determines liability, not the specific VAT ID used.
Court’s Ruling (Operative Part 3): “The fact that the transaction in respect of which VAT is due was carried out under the individual VAT identification number allocated to the taxable person by the Member State in which he or she is established or under that allocated by the Member State in which the VAT is due cannot be decisive for the answers in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the operative part of the present judgment.”

5.4. Fourth Question: Dual Liability (Articles 204 and 205)

Question: Can a person be held liable simultaneously under both Article 204(1) (as primarily liable) and Article 205 (as jointly and severally liable)?
Court’s Analysis:Article 204 makes the appointed tax representative the primary liable party for VAT.
Article 205 explicitly states that joint and several liability applies to “a person other than the person liable for payment of VAT.”
Therefore, the roles are mutually exclusive. If a tax representative is appointed as primarily liable under Article 204, they cannot simultaneously be held jointly and severally liable for the same VAT debt under Article 205.
Court’s Ruling (Operative Part 4): Article 205 of the VAT Directive, “read in the light of Article 204(1) of that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that a person appointed as the person liable for payment of the VAT under that Article 204 cannot also be jointly and severally liable under Article 205 of that directive.”

Main Themes and Key Takeaways

Clear Distinction of Liability Types: The judgment clearly distinguishes between a tax representative being the primary person liable for VAT (under Article 204) and being jointly and severally liable for someone else’s VAT debt (under Article 205). These are distinct and, for the same debt, mutually exclusive roles.
Proportionality in Joint and Several Liability: The principle of proportionality is paramount. Member States cannot impose an unconditional or “strict” joint and several liability on a tax representative if that representative cannot demonstrate good faith, due diligence, and a lack of involvement in tax evasion. National laws must allow for such an assessment.
Efficient VAT Collection vs. Tax Representative Protection: The Court balances the Member States’ legitimate objective of ensuring efficient VAT collection (which Article 204 facilitates by providing a local contact) with the need to protect tax representatives from disproportionate burdens, especially when they act merely as administrative intermediaries.
Discretion of Member States, but within EU Law: While Member States have discretion in laying down conditions for appointing tax representatives and establishing joint and several liability, this discretion is always limited by overarching EU legal principles, particularly proportionality and legal certainty.
Focus on Actual Role, Not Just Title: The actual involvement and capacity of the tax representative are crucial for determining the appropriateness of joint and several liability, rather than merely their designation by national law (e.g., “representative” vs. “agent”).
Limited Impact of VAT Identification Numbers: The specific VAT identification number used by a non-established taxable person does not inherently change the principles governing the tax representative’s liability.