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

Introduction

EU VAT compliance remains highly sensitive to Court of Justice (ECJ/CJEU) and General Court (GC/EGC) jurisprudence because the case law continuously shapes (i) the practical reach of VAT neutrality, (ii) how “formal” requirements interact with substantive rights (deduction/refund), and (iii) the permissible margins of Member State discretion (e.g., standstill clauses, reduced rates, exemption boundaries). [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]

This overview is strictly based on VATupdate.com postings published during March 2026 (and the specific items provided), and therefore reflects the facts, questions, holdings and practical commentary as reported there. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]

The article combines:

Court rulings (judgments/orders),
Questions released / procedural steps, including GC/ECJ matters where the questions are available, and ECJ “review” (RX) developments, and
Practical insights from consultant / market commentary posts on VATupdate.com, highlighting how outcomes are being interpreted and operationalised in practice. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]

ECJ and General Court Judgments

T‑221/25, TUI Belgium, General Court, judgment of 25 March 2026 [vatupdate.com]

Bullet‑point summary

Issue: VAT treatment of travel agents’ services for travel outside the EU and whether Belgium could continue taxing under a standstill/transitional taxation framework. [vatupdate.com]
Question: Whether continued taxation required an explicit national derogation from the exemption, and whether legislative technique (explicit vs implicit) altered the validity of relying on the standstill clause (Sixth Directive / Article 370 VAT Directive). [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]
Decision: The Court affirmed that Belgium could maintain the taxation without needing an express “derogation” clause, provided the national approach remained essentially consistent with the prior regime and the standstill conditions were met. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]

Detailed analysis

The dispute concerned VAT refunds claimed by TUI Belgium (VAT group “TRAVEL4YOU”) for VAT charged on non‑EU travel services over a long period (2000–2014). The taxpayer argued that Belgian legislative changes removed the explicit basis for taxing such travel agency services, implying an exemption should apply. [vatupdate.com]

VAT compliance implications

TOMS and travel sector: Groups operating travel agency models should reassess whether non‑EU travel elements are taxed/exempt based on Member State standstill rules, and ensure their position is aligned with national legislative history (not just current wording). [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]
Documentation & audit defence: The case underlines the need to maintain robust files on (i) services scope (EU vs non‑EU travel), (ii) the applicable scheme (TOMS), and (iii) national legal continuity arguments that tax authorities may rely on in audits/refund disputes. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]
Multinational relevance: Travel groups with centralised service models should anticipate that similar standstill‑based outcomes can sustain country‑specific deviations, increasing the importance of local legal mapping. [vatupdate.com]

C‑513/24, Oblastní nemocnice Kolín, ECJ, judgment of 19 March 2026 [vatupdate.com]

Bullet‑point summary

Issue: Pro‑rata deduction for “general costs” where inputs are required by regulation for VAT‑exempt healthcare services but also used for taxable activities. [vatupdate.com]
Question: Whether Article 173(1) VAT Directive treats legally required equipment costs as “general costs” enabling proportional deduction, merely because the regulatory requirement exists. [vatupdate.com]
Decision: The ECJ held that costs incurred for goods/services required by national rules for VAT‑exempt healthcare do not become general costs solely due to that regulatory requirement, even if also used for taxable services. [vatupdate.com]

Detailed analysis

VATupdate reports that the hospital provided both VAT‑exempt healthcare and VAT‑deductible “additional services,” and sought to treat minimum equipment costs as overheads attributable to the whole economic activity. The Court’s approach, as summarised, reaffirmed the centrality of the “direct and immediate link” test in deduction mechanics, and rejected using regulatory obligation alone as a shortcut to classify costs as general costs. [vatupdate.com]

VAT compliance implications

Cost attribution governance: Healthcare and mixed‑activity groups should tighten internal methodologies for allocating input VAT between exempt and taxable outputs, ensuring allocation is based on use/link rather than the mere existence of licensing obligations. [vatupdate.com]
Audit readiness: Expect tax authorities to challenge “over‑broad overhead” claims, particularly where equipment is primarily driven by exempt activity requirements. Maintain evidence of taxable use (usage logs, service line mapping, allocation keys). [vatupdate.com]
Cross‑border relevance: Multinationals with health/benefit service lines (or mixed VAT profiles) should monitor local administrative approaches to “general costs” in partial exemption regimes. [vatupdate.com]

C‑527/24, Harry and Associés, ECJ, judgment of 12 March 2026 [vatupdate.com]

Bullet‑point summary

Issue: Cross‑border VAT refund (Directive 2008/9) where the application became unreadable due to a technical malfunction, and national authorities treated it as “non‑existent,” blocking both refund and judicial remedy. [vatupdate.com]
Question: Whether EU law precludes national rules/practice that deny refund and access to court solely because IT transmission errors made an application unreadable, especially where authorities remained inactive. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]
Decision: The Court ruled that denying both the refund right and access to justice on this basis is contrary to EU law, highlighting neutrality/effectiveness/proportionality. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]

Detailed analysis

VATupdate describes a French taxpayer seeking an Italian refund for 2015; the application was received but unreadable due to technical errors. The authority did not process the request. Subsequent domestic litigation ultimately treated the request as non‑existent and not appealable—leading to forfeiture risk. The ECJ’s outcome, as summarised on VATupdate, reinforces that technical defects cannot extinguish substantive rights where the taxpayer is not at fault and effective judicial protection must remain available. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]

VAT compliance implications

Refund process controls: Multinationals should implement controls for 8th Directive refund submissions: transmission receipts, file integrity checks, and escalation paths if a portal/authority does not acknowledge content readability. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]
Dispute strategy: The judgment supports arguing that authority inaction + technical failure should not remove appeal rights; preserve evidence showing timely submission and non‑attributable IT issues. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]
Digital compliance context: As administrations move further into digital filing, this ruling strengthens the principle that digital-by-default must still respect effectiveness and access to justice. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]

C‑521/24, Aptiv Services Hungary Kft., ECJ, judgment of 12 March 2026 [vatupdate.com]

Bullet‑point summary

Issue: Whether deduction can be denied where invoices for intra‑Community acquisitions were received late, and the taxpayer claimed deduction when the invoices were actually received (in good faith). [vatupdate.com]
Question: Whether VAT Directive provisions and principles (neutrality, proportionality, effectiveness) preclude national rules/practice that refuse deduction solely because the taxpayer did not claim it in the original period (and self‑correction deadlines had expired). [vatupdate.com]
Decision: The ECJ opposed denial solely on that ground, where the taxpayer acted in good faith and within the limitation period, and the invoices were genuinely received later. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]

Detailed analysis

VATupdate reports that Aptiv claimed deduction in 2021 for acquisitions made 2016–2018 because invoices were received/registered late. Authorities demanded correction of original periods, but time limits prevented that for earlier years. The ECJ’s approach as summarised aligns with established principles that formal/procedural mechanisms must not make the right to deduct excessively difficult where substantive conditions are met and no fraud is indicated. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]

VAT compliance implications

Invoice lifecycle controls: Strengthen vendor/invoice receipt controls for intra‑EU acquisitions (including evidence of delayed receipt outside the taxpayer’s control). [vatupdate.com]
Return correction strategy: Where local practice pushes “self‑correction only,” this judgment supports claiming in the later period upon invoice receipt (subject to local limitation rules) and defending against purely formal refusals. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]
Multinational models: Particularly relevant for shared-service accounting and intercompany supply chains where invoices can be delayed by process design; align “good faith” documentation and audit trails. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]

C‑515/24, Randstad España, ECJ, judgment of 12 March 2026 [vatupdate.com]

Bullet‑point summary

Issue: Deductibility of VAT on entertainment/representation expenses (tickets/recreational services provided to clients) and the scope of the Article 176 “standstill clause”. [vatupdate.com]
Question: Whether Spain could maintain an exclusion introduced on the date of EU accession, even if no “prior VAT system” existed in Spain before accession. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]
Decision: The Court held Article 176(2) does not preclude a national rule effective at accession introducing an exclusion for such expenses. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]

Detailed analysis

VATupdate notes that the Court focused on the meaning of “provided for” at the accession date and accepted that introducing VAT together with exclusions at accession can still fall within the standstill logic. The practical effect is confirmation that Member States may preserve/anchor certain deduction exclusions on accession timing, even if taxpayers argue it “newly worsens” their position. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]

VAT compliance implications

Expense policy alignment: Review VAT recovery rules for representation and hospitality costs country-by-country, because irrecoverable VAT can persist under standstill logic even when business linkage exists. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]
Audit files: Ensure clear categorisation of expenses and consistent application of local deduction blocks. Multinationals should align procurement and T&E coding to avoid systematic over‑recovery. [vatupdate.com]
Cross‑border relevance: Confirms ongoing divergence risk between Member States on blocked input tax categories, reinforcing the need for local rule engines in tax determination/recovery processes. [vatupdate.com]

C‑436/24, Lyko Operations, ECJ, judgment of 5 March 2026 [vatupdate.com]

Bullet‑point summary

Issue: Whether loyalty points in a customer reward scheme qualify as “vouchers” (Articles 30a/30b VAT Directive). [vatupdate.com]
Question: Whether points that are non‑transferable, have no cash value, and can be redeemed only with a subsequent purchase create a voucher-like obligation. [vatupdate.com]
Decision: The Court held such points are not vouchers, so voucher rules (including taxable amount mechanics) do not apply. [vatupdate.com]

Detailed analysis
VATupdate summarises that a key voucher condition is an obligation to accept the instrument as consideration/part consideration for a supply. The Court treated the points as a discount/bonus mechanism conditional on a new purchase rather than consideration. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]

VAT compliance implications

Loyalty programme design: Businesses should validate whether their instruments meet voucher criteria; classification affects timing of VAT and accounting system design. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]
Systems & data: Ensure ERP/loyalty systems can support discount/bonus accounting and VAT treatment consistent with the Court’s voucher boundary. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]

C‑472/24, Žaidimų valiuta, ECJ, judgment of 5 March 2026 [vatupdate.com]

Bullet‑point summary

Issue: VAT treatment of selling in‑game “gold” for real money; whether it is exempt as “currency” (Article 135(1)(e)), or treated as a voucher, or eligible for margin scheme logic. [vatupdate.com]
Question: Whether game‑specific virtual money qualifies for the “legal tender/currency” exemption or voucher classification, and how to compute the taxable amount. [vatupdate.com]
Decision: The Court denied exemption and rejected voucher classification; VAT applies to the full sale price under general rules. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]

VAT compliance implications

Digital business models: Platforms and resellers dealing in game assets should treat such sales as taxable supplies and ensure correct VAT charging, invoicing, and record‑keeping. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]
Classification governance: The ruling underlines that not all “virtual currencies” are equal for VAT; game‑restricted assets may be treated differently from broader payment instruments. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]

ECJ/EGC cases where the facts/questions are released

T‑96/26, TellusTax Advisory, General Court, facts and questions released (5 March 2026) [vatupdate.com]

Bullet‑point summary

Facts: A cross‑border services scenario where the service would be taxable in the provider Member State (Sweden) but is treated as exempt in the customer Member State (Luxembourg) due to different transposition/interpretation of the exemption for management of special investment funds. [vatupdate.com]
Question: Whether, under Articles 168(a) and 169(a) VAT Directive, a Member State may refuse input VAT deduction on expenditure linked to supplies to another Member State taxable person because the transaction is not taxable in that other Member State, where the divergence results from different national transposition of Article 135(1)(g). [vatupdate.com]

T‑138/26, Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej, General Court, facts and questions released (24 March 2026) [vatupdate.com]

Bullet‑point summary

Facts: A bank enters into derivatives on greenhouse gas emission allowances, including non‑deliverable forward transactions settled purely in cash (no ownership transfer). Polish authorities/courts treated the transactions as non‑exempt where physical delivery could be possible in the product design. [vatupdate.com]
Question: Whether Article 135(1)(f) read with Article 15(2) VAT Directive requires exemption for forward sales of emission allowances with a cash settlement option, even where there is no delivery/ownership transfer in the executed transaction. [vatupdate.com]

C‑472/24, Žaidimų valiuta, ECJ, judgment of 5 March 2026

Bullet‑point summary

Issue: VAT treatment of sales of “in‑game gold” for real money in online gaming environments.
Question: Whether the sale of virtual in‑game currency qualifies as a VAT‑exempt transaction concerning currencies (Article 135(1)(e) VAT Directive), as a voucher (Articles 30a–30b), or should be taxed under general VAT rules.
Decision: The ECJ ruled that in‑game gold does not qualify as a VAT‑exempt currency nor as a VAT voucher and is therefore subject to VAT on the full consideration received.

Detailed analysis
The case concerned a Lithuanian business trading “gold” used exclusively within a specific online game. The taxpayer argued that such transactions should be exempt as currency exchange or treated either as vouchers or under a margin‑type approach.

The Court confirmed that the VAT exemption for transactions concerning “currency, bank notes and coins” applies only to instruments that function as a means of payment in real‑world transactions. In‑game gold, which has no legal tender function and can only be used within a closed gaming ecosystem, does not meet this criterion.

The Court further rejected classification as a voucher under Articles 30a and 30b of the VAT Directive. The in‑game gold does not represent a right to receive goods or services in the future from an identified supplier but constitutes an immediately consumable digital benefit. Consequently, VAT is chargeable under the general rules, with the taxable amount determined pursuant to Article 73 of the VAT Directive.

VAT compliance implications

Digital supplies: Online platforms and intermediaries trading virtual gaming assets must treat such sales as taxable supplies, charging VAT on the full sales price.
Classification risks: The judgment draws a clear distinction between cryptocurrencies used as means of payment, vouchers, and game‑restricted virtual assets. Incorrect classification may result in under‑declared VAT and penalties.
Systems and documentation: Businesses should ensure correct VAT determination logic in billing and reporting systems, particularly where virtual assets are monetised cross‑border.

Customs Case relevant for VAT: T‑296/25, Lidikar, General Court, judgment of 25 March 2026

Bullet‑point summary

Issue: Use of foreign export prices obtained via international customs cooperation for determining EU customs value under the residual valuation method (Article 74(3) UCC).
Question: Whether export price data provided by non‑EU customs authorities can be treated as “data available in the customs territory of the Union” and used as “reasonable means” for customs valuation.
Decision: The General Court confirmed that such foreign export prices may be used under the residual method where the declared transaction value is unreliable and other valuation methods cannot be applied.

VAT relevance and analysis
Although formally a customs case, the judgment has direct VAT implications because import VAT is calculated on the customs value determined under the Union Customs Code.

The Court confirmed that EU customs authorities may rely on export price data obtained through international cooperation agreements (e.g. with Canada) when there are reasonable doubts about the declared transaction value and standard valuation methods are unavailable. This significantly strengthens the evidentiary toolkit of customs authorities in post‑clearance audits.

VAT compliance implications

Import VAT exposure: An upward customs revaluation automatically increases the import VAT base, potentially triggering additional VAT liabilities, interest, and penalties.
Audit preparedness: Multinational importers should ensure robust valuation documentation and be prepared to reconcile declared values with foreign export data that customs authorities may access.
Customs–VAT interface: The case highlights the increasing convergence between customs enforcement and VAT collection, particularly in data‑driven audit environments.

Newly registered ECJ and General Court VAT cases (no substantive details yet available)

C‑167/26 RX, review of T‑689/24, ECJ review procedure opened (14 March 2026) [vatupdate.com]

Case reference: C‑167/26 RX
Court: ECJ
Standard description: Review procedure opened (RX) following the General Court’s judgment in T‑689/24; the ECJ will assess whether that judgment creates a serious risk to the unity/consistency of EU law. [vatupdate.com]

Practical takeaways for EU VAT compliance (actions)

Re‑validate deduction/refund controls against “formalism” risk: March jurisprudence again protects substantive rights where businesses act in good faith and meet material conditions (late invoice receipt; IT malfunctions), but requires strong evidence and process discipline. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]
Tighten digital evidence packs: For VAT refunds and deductions, preserve submission receipts, integrity checks, invoice lifecycle timestamps, and escalation logs—particularly in cross‑border flows. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]
Map standstill-driven local divergences: Travel services and representation expenses show that standstill concepts can entrench Member State differences long-term; embed these rules in tax determination engines and expense policies. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]
Assess “classification” exposure in digital business models: Loyalty schemes and virtual assets demonstrate that VAT outcomes turn on precise legal classification (voucher vs discount; currency vs taxable digital benefit). Update product tax matrices and documentation accordingly. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]
Monitor divergent national implementation highlighted by VATupdate commentary: Use the consultant reaction posts to identify where audits/guidance may tighten (e.g., Hungary deduction formalism; Spain entertainment blocks; travel standstill technique). [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]
ViDA interaction (non‑speculative): These rulings reinforce that, as e‑invoicing/real‑time controls expand, businesses must design processes that preserve substantive VAT rights while meeting digital form requirements—especially around invoice timing and electronic submissions. [vatupdate.com], [vatupdate.com]

Conclusion

March 2026 VATupdate case coverage highlights three consistent compliance trends: (i) courts limiting disproportionate formal barriers (late invoices; technical refund failures), (ii) sustained Member State discretion where EU law allows it (standstill clauses; reduced-rate segmentation), and (iii) increasing importance of correct legal classification in modern commercial constructs (loyalty schemes; virtual assets).

Agenda