While the ECJ concurred that the provisions give rise to distortions of competition and go against the principal of fiscal neutrality, it said: “It must be borne in mind that, in accordance with the settled case-law of the Court, the interpretation of a provision of EU law in the light of its context and aims cannot have the result of depriving the clear and precise wording of that provision of all effectiveness. Thus, where the meaning of a provision of EU law is absolutely plain from its very wording, the Court cannot depart from that interpretation.”
Source: answerconnect.cch.com
See also
- Summary of ECJ C-180/22 (Mensing) – VAT paid on intra-EU acquisition is to be included in taxable amount under profit margin scheme
- C-180/22 (Mensing) – Judgment – VAT paid on intra-EU acquisition is to be included in taxable amount under profit margin scheme
- C-264/17 (Mensing) – Judgment – Margin scheme on works of art; right to deduct input VAT by taxable dealer
- Join the Linkedin Group on ECJ VAT Cases, click HERE
- For an overview of ECJ cases per article of the EU VAT Directive, click HERE
Latest Posts in "European Union"
- VAT IOSS Scheme: Intermediary Registration Available from April 2026 for Non-EU Businesses
- Customs and VAT Fraud Cost EU €45 Billion in 2025, Officials Warn
- EPPO Investigates Record 3,600 Customs Fraud Cases in 2025, Damages Reach 67 Billion Euros
- Intermediary Registration for UK Import One Stop Shop Scheme Opens April 2026
- EPPO Uncovers €45 Billion VAT and Customs Fraud, Reshaping EU Criminal Landscape in 2025
