News

03.08.2026

Tax & Financial Standards New Judgments of the ECJ For July 2026

Tax & Financial Standards New Judgments of the ECJ For July 2026

 

July

 

Joined Cases C-261/25 and C-262/25 of 2 July 2026

Unfair terms in consumer contracts – Effects of a term being found to be unfair – Contract found to be null and void – Action for restitution brought by the seller or supplier – Limitation period for the seller or supplier’s action – Point from which time runs – Principle of equivalence – Principle of effectiveness – Principle of legal certainty – Principle of proportionality – Right to effective legal protection – Unjust enrichment

Key aspects of the decision in the economic range:

Consumer protection. The right to effective judicial protection. The principles of effectiveness, equivalence, proportionality and legal certainty not precluding a judicial interpretation of national legislation according to which the limitation period for a seller or supplier’s claim against a consumer for the restitution of undue payments made in performance of a contract found to be null and void as a result of unfair terms contained therein, begins to run from the date on which the consumer challenged for the first time.

Concerning the restitution of undue payments made by banks to those consumers under loan agreements that have become null and void as a result of unfair terms contained therein.

T-356/25 of 8 July 2026

Common system of VAT — Tax representative appointed as the person liable for payment of VAT — Joint and several liability — National legislation appointing the tax representative as liable for payment of VAT and providing for his or her joint and several liability — Proportionality

Key aspects of the decision in the economic range:

The VAT Directive does not preclude a tax representative of a taxable person established in another Member State from being regarded as liable for payment of the VAT, even though that tax representative is not involved in the taxable transactions carried out by the taxable person, provided that that tax representative has been appointed as such by that taxable person. The principle of proportionality precludes a tax representative who is not appointed as the person liable for payment of the VAT due by a taxable person established in another Member State, but who is responsible for carrying out, on behalf of a such a taxable person, VAT filing obligations, without having to keep accounts.

Proceedings between AY, a customs agent resident in Greece, and the AADE, Independent Revenue Authority, Greece, concerning precautionary measures taken against AY in respect of the payment of value added tax due in that Member State by O, a company whose registered office is in Italy.

C-186/25 of 9 July 2026

Own resources of the European Union — Protection of the European Union’s financial interests — Public procurement — Direct award — Late performance of the service — Failure to implement a penalty clause — Financial corrections — Proportionality — Reasons for the decision imposing the financial correction — Concept of ‘irregularity’

Key aspects of the decision in the economic range:

In the context of a review of a project financed by a joint operational programme under the ENI, the authority responsible for that review may require the beneficiary of that project to provide evidence of the competence and experience of the successful tenderer to which it has awarded a public service contract. First, the late performance of a service in relation to the date provided for in a contract concluded between a contracting authority, a beneficiary of a project financed by a joint operational programme under the ENI, and a successful tenderer designated at the end of a public procurement procedure, and, second, the failure by that beneficiary to implement a penalty clause of a contractual nature in response to that late performance, are capable of constituting irregularities. Concept of ‘irregularity’.

Proceedings between the Institute or ‘the beneficiary’ and the national authority concerning a decision by which that authority imposed financial corrections owing to, first, a lack of transparency in a public procurement procedure and, second, the late performance of a contract in the context of implementing a project funded by the Joint Operational Programme for Cross-Border Cooperation.

C-188/25 of 9 July 2026

Unfair terms in consumer contracts — Loan and guarantee agreements  — Task carried out in the public interest — Loans granted on preferential terms — Referral back for reconsideration following an appeal — Obligation to comply with the legal rulings of a higher court — Principle of the primacy of EU law — Limitation of the temporal effects of the judgment — Concept of ‘seller or supplier’

Key aspects of the decision in the economic range:

A public body, which carries out a not-for-profit activity of housing assistance consisting, is a ‘seller or supplier’ in so far as the loan agreements which it concludes with those persons fall. The principle of the primacy of EU law requires a national court, which is bound, under a rule or practice of national law, by the legal rulings of a higher national court in a case which has been referred back to it for reconsideration, to disregard those rulings where it considers that they are not consistent with the interpretation of a provision of EU law provided by the Court under Article 267 TFEU. Concept of ‘seller or supplier’.

Dispute regarding the repayment of the balance under a housing loan contract terminated early.

C-360/25 of 9 July 2026

Aid — Value added tax — Exemption in respect of services provided between undertakings primarily carrying out transactions in the banking, insurance or pension fund sector — Selectivity — Request to limit the temporal effects of the judgment — Concept of ‘aid’

Key aspects of the decision in the economic range:

An exemption relating to other services, when those services are used directly to carry exempt transactions. An exemption from VAT of services, which are not otherwise exempt, provided between undertakings primarily carrying out transactions relating to the banking, insurance or pension fund sector, constitutes State aid. Contra legem. Concept of ‘aid’.

Proceedings, concerning the value added tax notices of assessment.

T-268/25 of 15 July 2026

Taxable persons — VAT group — Measures to prevent tax evasion or avoidance — Legislation of a Member State making it possible to include in a VAT group persons which are not taxable or are exempt from VAT — Condition of 100% ownership of the capital of the other members of the group in order for a VAT group to be formed — Concept of „independence“

Key aspects of the decision in the economic range:

The VAT Directive precludes legislation of a Member State which makes eligibility to form a VAT group, comprising, on the one hand, persons carrying out activities subject to VAT and, on the other, persons carrying out activities exempt from VAT, subject to the condition that one person in the VAT group owns, directly all of the capital of the other person or persons in that VAT group, unless that requirement constitutes a necessary and appropriate measure for attaining the objectives of combating tax evasion or avoidance. Persons closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links. Concept of „independence“.

Proceedings concerning the refusal by the tax authorities of the application for joint registration in respect of value added tax submitted by a company and its subsidiary.

C-51/25 of 16 July 2026

Payment services in the internal market — Transaction by an intermediary entity carried out under a tripartite agreement and consisting in the holding of client funds in a bank account of that intermediary entity and the transfer of those funds to a business owner, following the client’s authorisation — Concept of a ‘payment service’

Key aspects of the decision in the economic range:

Ancillary nature of the payment services. Payment services provided by persons or entities for whom those services are not their professional activity. A service of receipt and forwarding of funds provided by an entity acting as an intermediary does not constitute a ‘payment service’ and more specifically a ‘credit transfer’, where, in the context of an agreement concluded with a client and a contractor, that entity receives the client’s funds into the payment account of a foundation which is linked to it and then transfers them to the contractor from that account, with the client’s consent.

A dispute between B a limited partnership under Netherlands law which provides guarantees and security deposits to individuals in connection with building construction projects, and the central bank of the Netherlands (‘DNB’), concerning an order for periodic penalty payments, imposed on B for infringement of the national legislation transposing Directive 2015/2366 and, specifically, for the exercise, without authorisation, of the activity of a payment service provider.

C-158/25 of 16 July 2026

Right to an effective remedy — National legislation providing for a system of joint and several liability of company directors for payment of value added tax (VAT) owed by the company — Binding effect of the findings of fact and legal classifications contained in a final tax assessment — Respect for the rights of the defence — Concept of ‘implementing Union law’

Key aspects of the decision in the economic range:

System of joint and several liability of company directors for payment of the valued added tax (VAT) owed by the company. Right of the director to challenge the ex officio VAT assessment. The requirements stemming from the right to an effective remedy are applicable in the context of judicial review proceedings brought by a company director, who is subject to a guarantee call, against a guarantee call decision taken pursuant to national legislation which provides that that director is jointly and severally liable for payment of the VAT owed by that company if he or she fails to discharge his or her director’s legal obligations in relation to VAT. Concept of ‘implementing Union law’.

Proceedings between QJ, a natural person, and AEDT, VAT Authority, concerning a guarantee call decision taken against QJ to collect the value added tax owed by a company whose director he was.