Roadtrip through ECJ Cases – Focus on ”VAT Grouping” (Art. 11 of EU VAT Directive)

Click HERE For more episodes in this serie: ECJ VAT Cases – Link to the relevant article in the EU VAT Directive 2006/112/EC

Last update: September 29, 2026

Relevant article in the EU VAT Directive

Article 11

After consulting the advisory committee on value added tax (hereafter, the “VAT Committee”), each Member State may regard as a single taxable person any persons established in the territory of that Member State who, while legally independent, are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links.

A Member State exercising the option provided for in the first paragraph, may adopt any measures needed to prevent tax evasion or avoidance through the use of this provision.

Corresponds to Article 4(4) of the Sixth VAT Directive

Importance of Article 11

What Article 11 says

It allows Member States to treat multiple legally independent entities as a single taxable person for VAT purposes, provided they are “closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links”. This is commonly referred to as a VAT group.

Why it’s important

Simplifies VAT administration – The VAT group is treated as one taxable person, so reporting, registration and recovery can be managed at group level. The detailed mechanics (registration, representative member, return format, joint liability) are determined by national law, and the Commission has confirmed that national grouping regimes differ considerably. [eur-lex.europa.eu]
Avoids unnecessary VAT charges – Intra-group transactions (e.g. services between subsidiaries) fall outside the scope of VAT, because supplier and recipient form part of the same taxable person.
Supports business efficiency – Encourages centralised shared services (HR, IT, finance) without triggering VAT on internal charges, which matters most where recovery is restricted.
Member State flexibility – Member States choose whether to allow VAT grouping and may set conditions, but that discretion is bounded by the wording of Article 11 and by proportionality, fiscal neutrality and legal certainty.
Anti-abuse safeguard – Member States may adopt measures to prevent tax evasion or avoidance, but a mere reduction of VAT revenue is not, by itself, evasion or avoidance.

ECJ Case Law Highlights

Skandia America (C-7/13): services from a third-country head office to its branch belonging to an EU VAT group can be subject to VAT, because the branch is absorbed into the VAT group as a separate taxable person.
Danske Bank (C-812/19): the mirror situation – a head office in a VAT group and its foreign branch are separate taxable persons. [eur-lex.europa.eu]
Commission v Ireland (C-85/11) and the parallel 2013 infringement cases: “persons” in Article 11 is not limited to taxable persons. [eur-lex.europa.eu]
Finanzamt T (C-184/23): internal supplies remain outside the scope of VAT even where the recipient cannot deduct. [eur-lex.europa.eu]

Summary Table

Feature	Article 11 – VAT Grouping
Purpose	Treat closely linked persons as one taxable person
Conditions	Financial, economic and organisational links; establishment in the Member State
Effects	Internal supplies outside scope of VAT; single taxable person
Territorial scope	Strictly national; no cross-border VAT grouping
Member State role	Optional regime; conditions must be proportionate and non-discriminatory
Direct effect	None – national implementation required

ECJ Cases Decided

C-162/07 (Ampliscientifica and Amplifin) – Application of VAT grouping requires prior consultation by that State of the VAT Committee

The Court confirmed that a Member State wishing to apply the VAT grouping option under the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive must first consult the VAT Committee. Prior consultation is a genuine procedural condition attached to the exercise of the option, not a formality that can be disregarded, and national arrangements adopted without it cannot be presented as a valid implementation of the grouping regime.
The Italian consolidated payment mechanism at issue allowed controlling and controlled companies to settle VAT jointly. The Court distinguished such simplified payment arrangements from a true VAT group, in which the members cease to be separate taxable persons. A regime that merely centralises payment does not necessarily produce the single-taxable-person effect that Article 4(4) attaches to genuine grouping.
The Court further held that the grouping provision does not have direct effect. A taxable person cannot invoke it against the Member State in order to obtain VAT group treatment where the national conditions are not met. The judgment also confirmed that national anti-avoidance conditions must respect fiscal neutrality, proportionality and the protection of legitimate expectations.

C-480/10 (Commission v Sweden) – Sweden may limit VAT grouping to providers of financial services and insurance services

Swedish legislation restricted access to VAT grouping essentially to undertakings in the financial and insurance sectors. The Commission argued that this sectoral limitation breached the principle of equal treatment, since Article 11 refers to “any persons” without differentiating between branches of activity, and that Sweden had exceeded the discretion conferred by the provision.
The Court dismissed the action. It accepted that the restriction could be connected with the objective of preventing tax evasion or avoidance in a sector where exempt activities and limited deduction rights make grouping particularly attractive. The Commission had not demonstrated that the Swedish choice was inconsistent with EU law or that comparable situations were treated differently without justification.
The judgment illustrates the burden of proof in infringement proceedings. Where the Commission challenges a national grouping restriction, it must establish concretely that the measure breaches EU law, and not merely that Article 11 is silent on sectoral limits. Member States therefore retain meaningful latitude when designing the personal scope of their grouping regimes.

C-74/11 (Commission v Finland) – A VAT Group can be limited to the financial and insurance sector

Finland likewise confined its VAT grouping regime largely to undertakings carrying on financial and insurance activities. The Commission brought infringement proceedings, contending that limiting grouping to selected sectors was incompatible with Article 11 and with fiscal neutrality, since economically comparable operators in other sectors were denied the same simplification and cash-flow benefits.
The Court dismissed the action, following the reasoning applied the same day in the Swedish case. It held that the Commission had not established that the Finnish limitation infringed the Directive, in particular because Article 11 does not expressly require Member States that exercise the option to make it available to all economic sectors on identical terms.
Taken together with Commission v Sweden, the judgment confirms that the grouping option is genuinely optional in scope as well as in existence. A Member State may introduce grouping in a targeted way, provided the resulting differentiation is objectively justifiable and does not amount to arbitrary or disproportionate discrimination between comparable taxable persons.

C-85/11 (Commission v Ireland) – Non-taxable persons may be included in a VAT group

Irish law permitted persons who were not taxable persons in their own right to be included in a VAT group. The Commission argued that Articles 9 and 11 had to be read together, so that only persons already carrying out an independent economic activity could be regarded, collectively, as a single taxable person for VAT purposes. [eur-lex.europa.eu]
The Grand Chamber dismissed the action. It emphasised the wording of Article 11, which refers to “any persons” and not to “any taxable persons”, and noted that this wording contrasts deliberately with other provisions of the Directive. The provision therefore does not, of itself, exclude non-taxable persons from membership of a VAT group.
The Court also found that the Commission had not shown that including non-taxable persons was contrary to the objectives of Article 11, including administrative simplification and the prevention of abuse. Ireland was accordingly not in breach, and the Commission was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. [eur-lex.europa.eu]

C-86/11 (Commission v United Kingdom) – Article 11 does not restrict membership to taxable persons

The United Kingdom allowed persons without independent taxable status, including certain holding entities, to join a VAT group. The Commission again argued that the concept of a “single taxable person” presupposes that each member individually qualifies as a taxable person under Article 9 of the VAT Directive before grouping can take effect.
The Court rejected that construction, applying the same textual and purposive reasoning as in the Irish proceedings. Since Article 11 speaks of “persons”, the decisive question is whether the statutory financial, economic and organisational links exist between them, not whether each member separately carries out an economic activity for consideration.
The judgment is significant for groups containing passive holding companies, dormant entities or bodies acting outside the scope of VAT. Their inclusion is not precluded by EU law, although Member States remain free, within the limits of proportionality and neutrality, to impose justified conditions or anti-abuse safeguards in their national grouping rules.

C-95/11 (Commission v Denmark) – Inclusion of non-taxable persons is permitted

Danish legislation also permitted the inclusion of persons who were not themselves taxable persons within a VAT group. The Commission challenged this as an infringement of Articles 9 and 11, relying on the same systematic argument advanced in the parallel proceedings against Ireland, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands.
The Court dismissed the action for essentially the same reasons. It confirmed that the text of Article 11 does not limit membership to taxable persons, and that the Commission had not discharged its burden of showing that the Danish rules undermined the purpose of the provision or created a risk of tax evasion or avoidance.
The Danish case forms part of a coordinated group of 2013 judgments that settled a long-running interpretative dispute. Since then, the debate has shifted away from who may in principle be a member, and towards the intensity of the required links and the proportionality of national eligibility conditions.

C-109/11 (Commission v Czech Republic) – The concept of “persons” is broader than “taxable persons”

Czech legislation allowed non-taxable persons to form part of a VAT group. The Commission initiated infringement proceedings on the same basis as against the other Member States, arguing that grouping could only aggregate entities that each independently satisfied the definition of a taxable person under Article 9.
The Court dismissed the action, confirming that Article 11 does not contain such a limitation. The provision’s reference to “any persons” must be given its ordinary meaning, and the Commission had not demonstrated that the Czech implementation conflicted with the objectives of simplification and the prevention of abuse pursued by Article 11.
Read alongside the Irish, British, Danish and Dutch judgments, this ruling establishes a uniform EU-level position. Member States may adopt an inclusive membership model, but they are not obliged to do so, and national law remains decisive for determining who can actually join a domestic VAT group.

C-65/11 (Commission v Netherlands) – Non-taxable persons and the scope of VAT Committee consultation

The Commission contested the Dutch rules allowing non-taxable persons to belong to a VAT group. As in the parallel cases, the Court held that Article 11 does not preclude their inclusion, since the provision refers to “persons” generally and the Commission had not proved that the national rules were incompatible with the aims of the Directive. [eur-lex.europa.eu]
The judgment adds an important procedural dimension concerning consultation of the VAT Committee. The Court accepted that consultation is required when a Member State exercises the grouping option, but held that non-substantial modifications to existing rules, which do not alter the essential features of the scheme already notified, do not trigger a fresh obligation to consult.
For practitioners, the case clarifies that the consultation requirement is a real but proportionate constraint. It protects EU-level oversight of the introduction and substantive redesign of grouping regimes, without obliging Member States to return to the VAT Committee for every technical or administrative amendment of their national provisions.

C-7/13 (Skandia America) – Supply of services between head office and branch part of a VAT group constitutes a taxable transaction

A United States head office acquired IT services externally and allocated the associated costs to its Swedish branch, which was registered as a member of a Swedish VAT group. The referring court asked whether those internal allocations could constitute taxable supplies despite head office and branch forming a single legal entity.
The Court held that, by joining the VAT group, the branch ceased to be treated for VAT purposes as forming a single taxable person with its foreign head office. The branch became part of the VAT group, which constitutes a distinct taxable person, so services supplied by the head office were supplied to that group.
The consequence is that the supplies were taxable and the VAT group was liable to account for VAT under the reverse charge. Skandia remains the leading authority on the territorial limits of Article 11 and has significant cost implications for banks, insurers and other partially exempt groups with branch structures.

C-108/14 and C-109/14 (Larentia + Minerva and Marenave) – Legal personality and subordination requirements

German law reserved VAT grouping to entities having legal personality and linked to the controlling company by a relationship of subordination. The Court held that Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive precludes such conditions, unless they constitute measures that are appropriate and necessary to prevent abusive practices or to combat tax evasion or avoidance.
The assessment of that justification was left to the national court. The Court thereby set a proportionality test: categorical exclusions based on legal form or on a rigid hierarchical relationship cannot be maintained simply because they are administratively convenient or because they reflect long-standing domestic concepts of fiscal integration.
The Court also confirmed that the grouping provision lacks direct effect. Taxable persons cannot rely on it against a Member State whose legislation is incompatible and cannot be interpreted consistently, although national courts must interpret domestic law in conformity with EU law so far as it is possible to do so.

C-340/15 (Nigl and Others) – Partnerships marketing products under a common brand name and through a limited liability company – Concept of independent undertakings

Several family partnerships carried on viticultural activities, marketed wine under a shared brand through a common limited liability company and used shared premises and equipment. The Austrian authorities sought to treat them as a single undertaking, denying them separate taxable person status and access to the flat-rate farmers’ scheme.
The Court held that legally distinct partnerships which act in their own name, on their own account and under their own responsibility, bearing the economic risk of their activities, must be regarded as independent taxable persons. Shared branding, joint marketing and pooled resources do not, by themselves, eliminate that independence.
The judgment is relevant to Article 11 because it confirms that close economic cooperation is not a substitute for a formally constituted VAT group. Aggregation of separate operators for VAT purposes requires a valid national grouping regime, not an informal assessment of their commercial interdependence by the tax authority.

C-77/19 (Kaplan International Colleges UK) – Cost sharing exemption and VAT groups

A cost sharing group established in Hong Kong supplied services to UK colleges, most of which belonged to a UK VAT group that also contained members who were not members of the cost sharing group. The question was whether the exemption in Article 132(1)(f) applied to those supplies. [eur-lex.europa.eu]
The Court held that the exemption could not apply. Where the recipient belongs to a VAT group, the supplies are treated as made to the group as a whole, and the group cannot be regarded as a “member” of the independent group of persons unless all of its constituent members are themselves members of that cost sharing group.
The ruling establishes an important boundary between Article 11 and the exemption provisions. VAT grouping determines the identity of the recipient of a supply, but it cannot be used to extend the personal scope of an exemption to entities that do not individually satisfy the conditions laid down for that exemption. [eur-lex.europa.eu]

C-812/19 (Danske Bank) – Head office part of a VAT group and its branch are separate taxable persons

Danske Bank’s Danish principal establishment belonged to a Danish VAT group, while its Swedish branch did not belong to that group. The head office used an IT platform for the Scandinavian business and allocated a share of the costs to the Swedish branch, raising the question whether those charges were taxable supplies. [eur-lex.europa.eu]
The Court ruled that Article 9(1) and Article 11 must be interpreted as meaning that the principal establishment, forming part of a VAT group in one Member State, and the branch established in another Member State must be regarded as separate taxable persons where the head office supplies services and imputes the costs to the branch.
Danske Bank completes the Skandia logic by confirming that it operates in both directions. Because a VAT group is territorially confined to the Member State that constituted it, the group’s boundary breaks the normal unity of a single legal entity, creating taxable cross-border intra-entity flows subject to the reverse charge.

C-868/19 (M-GmbH) – Members of a partnership and the head entity can form a VAT group

German administrative practice allowed a partnership to be financially integrated into a controlling undertaking only where all of the partners were themselves financially integrated into that undertaking. The effect was to exclude partnerships with outside partners from VAT group membership, irrespective of the actual degree of financial control exercised.
The Court held that Article 11, read in the light of legal certainty, proportionality and fiscal neutrality, precludes such a condition. The requirement went beyond what was necessary to establish the financial, economic and organisational links, and Germany had not shown that it was an appropriate and necessary measure against evasion or avoidance.
The judgment continues the line opened by Larentia + Minerva. National rules may operationalise the statutory links through workable tests, but they may not translate them into blanket exclusions of particular legal forms where the substantive integration required by Article 11 is in fact present.

C-141/20 (Norddeutsche Gesellschaft für Diakonie mbH) – VAT group: controlling member may be the single taxable person

The Court accepted that a Member State may designate the controlling company of a VAT group as the single taxable person, provided that company is in a position to impose its will on the other members and that the designation does not create a risk of tax losses for the public purse. The German representative-member model was therefore not incompatible as such.
However, the Court held that requiring the controlling company to hold both a majority shareholding and a majority of voting rights in every case goes beyond what Article 4(4) permits. Financial integration must be capable of being established without such cumulative and rigid quantitative conditions where actual control is otherwise demonstrated.
The Court further clarified that members of a VAT group cannot be treated as non-independent merely because they are integrated into the controlling company. Entities that carry on economic activities autonomously retain that character, and their integration into the group does not in itself deprive them of independence under Article 4(1).

C-269/20 (Finanzamt T) – Controlling company may be designated as the taxable person of a VAT group

A public-law foundation running a university hospital carried out both economic activities and activities in the exercise of public authority. A subsidiary supplied cleaning services covering premises used for both categories, raising questions about the identity of the taxable person and the treatment of activities outside the scope of VAT. [eur-lex.europa.eu]
The Court confirmed that designating the controlling entity as the single taxable person is permissible where it can impose its will on the other members and no tax loss arises. Grouping therefore consolidates the obligations of the members in the hands of the controlling entity, without altering the substantive nature of the group as the taxable person.
On the second question, the Court held that services supplied within the group for activities in which the controlling entity acts as a public authority cannot be taxed as supplies for purposes other than those of the business. Grouping does not convert the entity’s non-economic public activities into taxable private consumption.

C-184/23 (Finanzamt T) – Supplies within a VAT group are outside the scope of VAT even if input VAT is limited

The Bundesfinanzhof asked whether supplies made for consideration between members of the same VAT group should nonetheless be taxed where the recipient is not entitled, or only partly entitled, to deduct input VAT, on the basis that the absence of taxation would otherwise generate a permanent revenue loss. [eur-lex.europa.eu]
The Court answered that such internal supplies fall outside the scope of VAT. The consequence of treating the members as a single taxable person is that transactions between them are not supplies between separate taxable persons, and this conclusion applies irrespective of the recipient’s deduction position.
The Court added that the resulting revenue effect does not amount to a risk of tax loss justifying a different outcome. The judgment thus consolidates the single-taxable-person principle and is particularly valuable for healthcare, financial, insurance and public-sector groups relying on centralised shared services.

T-444/25 (Cavert) – VAT exemptions for public interest activities within a VAT group require individual member compliance

A Dutch fiscal unity comprised a foundation recognised for exempt care services and a company supplying remote monitoring services to third parties. The referring Hoge Raad asked whether the exemption conditions in Article 132(1)(b) and (g) must be satisfied by the group as a whole or by the member actually performing the supply. [infocuria…..europa.eu]
The General Court held that the exemptions can only apply where the specific member providing the services to third parties itself fulfils all the conditions, including recognition as an establishment of a comparable nature or as a body devoted to social wellbeing. Group membership does not transfer another member’s recognition.
The reasoning rests on the strict interpretation of exemptions and on fiscal neutrality. Extending an exemption to a member that does not individually meet the criteria would undermine the public-interest objectives pursued and would distort competition with independent operators supplying the same services outside a VAT group structure.

T-268/25 (Sampension Livsforsikring) – VAT group 100% ownership condition precluded, but no direct effect

The case concerned the Danish requirement of 100% ownership for the formation of a VAT group including entities carrying out VAT-exempt activities, and whether such a condition is compatible with the “close financial, economic and organisational links” standard laid down in Article 11 of the VAT Directive.
The General Court held that Article 11 precludes a 100% ownership condition unless it constitutes a necessary and proportionate measure to combat tax evasion or avoidance. It stressed that a mere reduction in tax revenue resulting from the absence of taxation of intra-group supplies does not, in itself, amount to evasion or avoidance.
The Court nevertheless confirmed that Article 11 has no direct effect. Taxable persons cannot rely on it directly to obtain VAT group status contrary to incompatible national legislation, although national courts remain obliged to interpret domestic law in conformity with EU law wherever that is possible.

ECJ Cases not yet Decided