The judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on November 13 2025 in case C-639/24 (Flo Veneer) constitutes a decision of particular relevance in relation to the VAT exemption applicable to intra-Community supplies of goods.
In particular, it clarifies the scope of Article 45a of the EU VAT Implementing Regulation and rejects excessively formalistic administrative interpretations that make the exemption conditional exclusively upon the submission of the documents listed in that provision.
The judgment reaffirms fundamental principles of the common VAT system:
The primacy of substantive requirements;
The principle of neutrality; and
The prohibition of artificially reclassifying an intra-Community transaction due to formal aspects.
Facts and origin of the dispute
In the context of a tax audit, the Croatian tax authorities examined several supplies of goods made by an entity established in Croatia to a customer established in Slovenia. The supplier treated those transactions as exempt intra-Community supplies of goods.
During the audit, the company provided written statements from the purchaser, sales invoices, documentation relating to the transport of the goods, and signed consignment notes.
Nevertheless, the Croatian tax authorities issued a VAT assessment denying the exemption. While the authorities did not dispute that the goods had, in fact, been transported from Croatia to Slovenia, they considered that the evidence submitted did not strictly satisfy the formal requirements laid down in Article 45a(1)(b) of the Implementing Regulation.
As a result, the exemption was denied, despite the absence of any explicit challenge to the actual cross-border movement of the goods.
The question referred
Following litigation, the referring Croatian court asked the CJEU:
Whether the exemption under Article 138 of the VAT Directive may be automatically denied where the documentary requirements of Article 45a of the Implementing Regulation are not met; or
Whether the tax authorities are required to assess any other means of evidence capable of demonstrating the effective intra-Community transport of the goods.
This question is directly connected with the court’s previous case law; in particular, the judgment in Euro Tyre (C-21/16).
The role of Article 45a of the Implementing Regulation
The CJEU recalls that Article 45a of the Implementing Regulation establishes rebuttable presumptions of intra-Community transport but does not define an exhaustive list of admissible means of proof.
The court is particularly clear in stating that Article 45a does not set out a closed list of evidence required to demonstrate the existence of an intra-Community supply. Its purpose is to facilitate proof where certain documents are available, not to exclude other forms of evidence.
Furthermore, Article 138 of the VAT Directive does not make the exemption conditional upon the possession of specific documents. The recitals of Regulation 2018/1912, which introduced Article 45a into the Implementing Regulation, confirm that the objective of that provision is to simplify and harmonise the evidentiary framework, not to introduce new substantive conditions for the exemption.
Criticism of administrative formalism
One of the most significant aspects of the judgment is the implicit criticism of the approach taken by the Croatian tax authorities. It is legally inconsistent and contrary to the logic of the VAT system for a tax authority to acknowledge the effective transport of goods from one EU member state to another and nevertheless deny the exemption solely on the ground that the standard documentation referred to in Article 45a is not available.
If it is accepted, or at least not disputed, that the goods have left one member state and arrived in the territory of another, the substantive requirements of an intra-Community supply are fulfilled. Denying the exemption in such circumstances amounts, in practice, to artificially reclassifying an intra-Community transaction, treating it as a domestic supply, thereby obliging the supplier to charge VAT.
This approach also gives rise to serious economic distortions, as the foreign purchaser will often be unable to recover VAT incorrectly charged in a member state in which it is not established.
Obligation to assess all available evidence
The court reiterates that tax authorities are required to examine all available evidence to determine whether an intra-Community supply has taken place. Limiting the assessment to a closed list of documents undermines the principle of fiscal neutrality and the objective of promoting intra-Community trade.
In its final answer, the CJEU expressly states that the exemption may not be denied solely because the documents referred to in Article 45a have not been provided, and that national authorities are obliged to assess any relevant means of evidence capable of proving the intra-Community transport of the goods.
Key takeaways
The Flo Veneer judgment clearly establishes that the list of documents set out in Article 45a is not exhaustive. That provision creates a favourable presumption but not an exclusive condition for the application of the exemption.
Where other sufficient means of proof exist, and even more so where the tax authority itself appears to acknowledge the existence of cross-border transport of the goods, the exemption under Article 138 of the VAT Directive must be granted.
Any other approach would deprive the principle of neutrality of its substance and, in practice, transform intra-Community supplies into fictitious domestic transactions, with disproportionate economic and legal consequences for taxable persons. The judgment therefore reinforces a substantive, coherent, and functional interpretation of the common VAT system.
This judgment is particularly welcome, as it once again emphasises that excessive formalism is not acceptable where the substantive conditions for applying a specific VAT treatment are fulfilled. Nevertheless, such formalistic approaches are still encountered more often than desirable in practice. It is to be hoped that tax authorities will take due note of this judgment.
