General Court VAT Case – T-407/26 (Wagner Sport Signage) – Questions – EU VAT refund application: missing VAT identification number for a single invoice

Summary

The Fővárosi Törvényszék (Budapest High Court, Hungary) submitted a request for a preliminary ruling on 5 June 2026 in proceedings between Wagner GmbH & Co. KG SPORT SIGNAGE and the Appeals Directorate of the Hungarian National Tax and Customs Administration.
The case concerns an application for a VAT refund submitted under Council Directive 2008/9/EC by a taxable person established in another EU Member State. The application was rejected in its entirety, and treated as not having been submitted, because it did not state the VAT identification number or tax reference number relating to a single invoice.
According to the referring court’s questions, the legislation of the Member State of establishment did not require that formal detail for the invoice concerned.
The central issue is whether the tax authority may reject the entire refund application without examining its merits or whether it must request additional information or process the properly completed part of the application.
The referring court also asks whether such a rejection is compatible with the right to good administration and the principles of fiscal neutrality, effectiveness and proportionality.

Articles of the EU VAT Directive 2006/112/EC discussed

The questions referred do not identify a specific substantive provision of Directive 2006/112/EC. They concern the procedural rules under Council Directive 2008/9/EC governing refunds of VAT, as provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons established in another Member State.

Article 8(1) and (2) of Directive 2008/9/EC – These provisions specify the information that a taxable person must provide in an electronic VAT refund application, including information concerning individual invoices or importation documents. They are relevant to the first, third and fourth questions because the refund application allegedly omitted the VAT identification number or tax reference number relating to one invoice.
Article 15(1) of Directive 2008/9/EC – This provision governs the deadline and conditions for submitting a VAT refund application. It is relevant to the first question, which asks whether an application containing a missing item of invoice information may be treated as not having been submitted.
Article 20(1), first sentence, of Directive 2008/9/EC – This provision allows the Member State of refund to request additional information from the applicant, the competent authorities of the Member State of establishment or another person where the tax authority considers that it does not have all the relevant information required to decide on the refund application. The third question asks whether this mechanism may be used to obtain information missing under Article 8(1) and (2).
Article 20(1) of Directive 2008/9/EC – More generally, this provision is relevant to the fourth question because the referring court asks whether a formal omission affecting part of the application prevents the authority from granting a refund for the remainder of the application.
Article 23(1) of Directive 2008/9/EC – This provision concerns the notification of a decision rejecting a refund application, in whole or in part, together with the grounds for rejection. It is relevant to the fourth question concerning whether the properly completed part of a refund application may still result in a VAT refund.
Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union – This provision enshrines the right to good administration. It is relevant to the second question, which asks whether rejecting the entire refund application without examining its merits is compatible with that right and with the principles of fiscal neutrality, effectiveness and proportionality.

Preliminary Ruling Questions

Is Council Directive 2008/9/EC of 12 February 2008 laying down detailed rules for the refund of value added tax, provided for in Directive 2006/112/EC, to taxable persons not established in the Member State of refund but established in another Member State (‘Directive 2008/9’) to be interpreted as meaning that national legislation (or a provision thereof), or an interpretation and application of that legislation (or provision), whereby the tax authority, without examining the merits of the case, rejects the entirety of an application for a refund of value added tax (VAT) submitted by a taxable person established in another Member State of the Community, treating the application as not having been submitted, on the ground that, in the application, the taxable person has not stated the VAT identification number (tax reference number) for a single invoice, in respect of which the legislation of the Member State of establishment does not impose such a formal requirement, is consistent with Articles 8(1) and (2) and 15(1) of that directive?
Is an answer to the first question in the affirmative, as the case may be, consistent with the right to good administration enshrined in Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and with the principles of fiscal neutrality, effectiveness and proportionality as developed by the Court of Justice of the European Union?
Is the first sentence of Article 20(1) of Directive 2008/9 to be interpreted as meaning that, if any of the information required under Article 8(1) and (2) regarding the content of the refund application is missing, that information may be obtained, as additional information, from the taxable person or from the competent authorities of the Member State of establishment?
If the answer to the third question is in the negative: are Articles 20(1) and 23(1) of Directive 2008/9 to be interpreted as meaning that, even if some of the information provided for in Article 8(1) and (2) is missing from the refund application (which constitutes a formal error), it is possible to obtain a VAT refund in respect of the remainder of the application that has been duly completed?

Key Takeaways

The case addresses whether a formal omission relating to one invoice can justify rejecting an entire cross-border VAT refund application without examining its substantive merits.
The ruling may clarify whether tax authorities must use the additional-information procedure under Article 20 of Directive 2008/9/EC before rejecting an application because required invoice information is missing.
The case may also determine whether the properly completed portion of a VAT refund application must be considered separately when the formal error affects only one invoice.

Source