In this article, the author analyses the CJEU’s decision in VANIZ (Case C-121/24) focusing on the limits of joint and several VAT liability under Article 205 of the VAT Directive. In VANIZ, the Court recognized broad latitude for Member States to seek joint and several recovery from the recipient where the supplier has ceased to exist, on the condition that the recipient knew or should have known that the VAT would not be paid, while the Advocate General argued for a tighter link to abuse and warned against an ex post reversal of the burden.
The analysis below reconstructs the facts and questions referred, explains the Advocate General’s proposal, contrasts it with the Court’s reasoning, and evaluates proportionality and legal certainty implications. It then offers a critical appraisal of the VANIZ reasoning and the procedural safeguards that must be respected to avoid a drift into quasi-strict liability. The conclusion highlights that the implementation of VANIZ will depend on the disciplined application of safeguards by national administrations and Courts.
EC Tax Review