Roadtrip through ECJ VAT Cases – VAT Cases referring to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU

Last update: July 17, 2026

What is the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

See Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter ”the Charter”

Good to know

Any citizen of the Union and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State has the right to petition the European Parliament (Article 44 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union).
As an example: European Parliament Petition by Ine Lejeune (Belgian) on VAT exemption on the transportation of exported goods

ECJ Cases Decided

C-132/06 (Commission v Italy) – Validity of VAT amnesty
- Article 10 of the Charter
C-500/10 (Belvedere Costruzioni) – Lengthy Italian VAT procedures may be settled without a decision on the merits
- Articles 47, 48(2), 52(3), 53 of the Charter
C-617/10 (Åkerberg Fransson) – A Member State can impose a tax penalty and a criminal penalty
- Articles 50 and 51 of the Charter
C-105/14 (Taricco and Others) – Criminal proceedings concerning offences in relation to VAT
C-419/14 (WebMindLicenses Kft) – When are Services supplied from a Fixed Establishment
- Articles 7, 8, 41, 47, 48, 51(1) and 52(1) and (3) of the Charter
C-543/14 (Ordre des barreaux francophones and germanophone and Others) – Services supplied by lawyers for clients who qualify for legal aid under a national legal aid scheme are not VAT exempted
- Article 47 of the Charter
C-217/15 & C-350/15 (Massimo Orsi & Luciano Baldetti) – No prohibition of double punishment of company and director for VAT fraud
- Article 50 of the Charter
C-574/15 (Scialdone) – EU law does not preclude a higher financial threshold applicable to VAT related offences
C-246/16 (Di Maura) – Principle of proportionality must be upheld in the case of bad debts
C-298/16 (Ispas) – Individuals must have access to information used for the imposition of a VAT assessment
C-310/16 (Dzivev and Others) – Illegal evidence obtained through wiretaps may not be used in VAT proceedings
- Article 47(1) and (2) of the Charter
C-534/16 (BB construct) – Security of €500,000 for VAT registration does not violate EU law
- Article 16, 21(1), 49(1) and (3), 50 of the Charter
C-42/17 (MAS and MB vs IT) – In criminal VAT proceedings sometimes national deadlines should be ignored
C-189/18 (Glencore Agriculture) – Judgment – Powers of tax authorities; Findings of administrative procedures to which the taxable person was not a party
- Article 47 of the Charter
C-97/21(MV-98) – Judgment – Sealing of business premises together with administrative penalty is not proportionate for failing to issue fiscal receipts
- Article 50 of the Charter
C-709/22 (Syndyk Masy Upadlosci A) – Split payment: Separate VAT account may be used only for limited purposes
- A bankruptcy trustee sought to transfer funds from a company’s special VAT account to pay property taxes, arguing that the company had no outstanding debts to the treasury since bankruptcy and that all creditors, including tax authorities, should be treated equally under insolvency law.
- The tax authority refused the transfer, citing existing VAT and income tax debts exceeding the requested amount and invoking national laws that restrict the use of funds in VAT accounts to specific purposes like paying VAT due to the tax authority or VAT on invoices from suppliers.
- The Court, considering EU VAT Directive provisions (Articles 206, 226, 273, 395) and the principles of proportionality, neutrality, right to property (Article 17(1) of the Charter), rule of law, and good administration, ultimately decided that EU law does not preclude national legislation that limits the use of funds in separate VAT accounts for specific purposes, even in bankruptcy proceedings, as long as the taxable person still has tax arrears.
C-605/23 (Ati-19” EOOD) – Judgment – Member State laws cannot limit judicial review of penalties
- The case involves a Bulgarian company, Ati-19 EOOD, challenging a financial penalty and the sealing of its premises by tax authorities for VAT-related irregularities, with the national court limiting judicial review of the sealing order to assessing potential damage.
- The ECJ ruled that Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which guarantees the right to an effective remedy, precludes national legislation that limits judicial review of provisional enforcement measures (like sealing premises) solely to the existence of serious or hardly reparable damage.
- This means that courts must be able to assess the underlying legality and factual justification of such administrative measures, not just the potential harm they might cause, to ensure comprehensive and effective judicial protection in line with EU law.
C-158/25 (AEDT and État du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg) – Judgment – Directors’ Joint & Several VAT Liability & the Right to an Effective Remedy
- The Court found that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, specifically Article 47 on the right to an effective remedy, applies to national laws that make company directors jointly and severally liable for a company’s unpaid VAT, because such laws implement EU VAT directives and protect the EU’s financial interests.
- The Court decided that national legislation cannot prevent a director, who is subject to a guarantee call for a company’s unpaid VAT, from incidentally challenging the final tax assessment previously issued to the company in the context of their own appeal.
- This right to incidental challenge allows the director to dispute the factual findings and legal classifications that establish their joint and several liability, including the VAT assessment itself and any infringements of their own fundamental rights during the tax procedure, as denying this would violate their fundamental right to an effective remedy.