This is what happened in the ECJ/General Court (VAT) in March 2025 – 1 Decision, 2 AG Opinions

This summarises the key developments in European Court of Justice (ECJ) and General Court (GC) VAT cases, primarily focusing on information released in March 2025. The information covers a recent judgment, Advocate General (AG) Opinions, new questions referred to the ECJ, and details of a new General Court case. Additionally, it highlights a new Dutch ECJ referral not yet on the Curia website.

Highlights in March 2025

1 case Decided/ 1 Order
3 AG Opinions released
3 Question have been released
0 new cases, no details yet

Join us on Linkedin

ECJ VAT news as soon as published: Almost 4200 experts joined our Linkedin Group on ECJ VAT Cases … and you?

Your database of ECJ Cases with the link to the relevant article in the EU VAT Directive 2006/112/EC

Judgment

ECJ C-640/23 (Greentech) – Judgment – VAT deductions denied if VAT is not due but taxpayers can claim refunds directly
- The ECJ issued a judgment in the Greentech case (C-640/23) concerning VAT deductions. The ruling states that VAT deductions will be denied if the VAT in question was not actually due. However, the judgment also indicates that taxpayers in such situations may have the right to claim refunds directly from the tax authorities.
- Implication: This clarifies the treatment of incorrectly charged VAT, preventing taxpayers from benefiting from deductions when the underlying VAT liability is absent, while simultaneously providing a mechanism for recovering the wrongly paid amounts directly from the tax authority.

Order

None

AG Opinion

C-808/23 (Högkullen) – AG Opinion – Management services from a holding company to subsidiaries can have comparable values under Article 72
- Theme: Valuation of Intra-Group Services for VAT Purposes.
- Key Idea/Fact: AG Opinion in Högkullen (C-808/23) addresses the valuation of management services provided by a holding company to its subsidiaries. The opinion suggests that such services can have comparable values under Article 72 of the VAT Directive, implying that the “open market value” principle should be applied.
- Implication: This opinion provides guidance on how to determine the taxable base for VAT on intra-group services, particularly focusing on the comparability of services to those supplied on the open market. It has implications for transfer pricing and VAT compliance within multinational groups.
C-125/24 (Palmstråle) – AG Opinion – Customs procedural failures do not negate import VAT exemptions
- Theme: Conditions for Import VAT Exemptions.
- Key Idea/Fact: The AG Opinion in Palmstråle (C-125/24) concerns import VAT exemptions. The opinion suggests that failures in customs procedures should not automatically negate the right to an import VAT exemption, provided the substantive conditions for the exemption are met.
- Implication: This opinion indicates a focus on the underlying economic reality and the fulfilment of substantive requirements for VAT exemptions on imports, even if there are administrative or procedural errors during the customs process.

Questions

None

New Dutch ECJ Case – Not on Curia Yet

Dutch Supreme Court Seeks CJEU Clarification on VAT Exemptions for Fiscal Unity in Disability Care
Supreme Court: preliminary questions to ECJ on the application of a (medical) exemption in the case of a VAT group
- Theme: VAT Exemptions and Fiscal Unity.
- Key Idea/Fact: The Dutch Supreme Court has referred a new case to the CJEU seeking clarification on the application of VAT exemptions, specifically in the context of a fiscal unity (VAT group) providing disability care. The preliminary questions relate to the application of a (medical) exemption within such a VAT group.
- Implication: This referral highlights ongoing complexities in applying VAT exemptions to specific sectors like healthcare when provided through VAT groups. The ECJ’s ruling will likely have significant implications for the VAT treatment of disability care services within fiscal unities in the Netherlands and potentially across the EU.

ECJ VAT Case, details not yet known