Judgements of the CJEU

• In Case T-643/24 Credidam, the Court  ruled on the taxability of the levy for the unauthorised use of musical works, while Romanian law provides that, in the event of non-granting of a licence, the reproduction of works to the public must be tolerated by the rightholders and, in return, the user is obliged to pay a threefold surcharge compared to the price list. According to the CJEU, it is a provision of a service for consideration if there is a direct link between the service and the remuneration, while a direct link is established by the national legislation applicable to both licensed and unauthorised reproduction of musical works. The tax base is the entire amount determined under national legislation, so it also includes a threefold surcharge. Given that the decision reflects specific Romanian legislation, the impact of this decision on practice is quite limited.
• In its decision in Case T-689/24, the Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej (CJEU) dealt with the issue of exercising the right to deduct VAT only for the period in which the tax document was received. The Court has held that the right to deduct may be exercised in a tax return filed in respect of the period in which (or before which) the transaction received took place, provided that the invoice is received before the declaration is filed. Such a conclusion will significantly shape the current approach to exercising the right to deduct VAT in practice.
• The conditions under Article 132(1)(f) of the VAT Directive concerning the exemption of services provided by an independent organisation to its members were dealt with by the CJEU in Cases C-379/24 Agrupació de Neteja Sanitària, AIE and C-380/24 Educat Serveis Auxiliars SCCL. The Court concluded that the condition of direct necessity requires that there be a link between the services provided by the organisation and the exempt activity of the members, and that they do not have to be specific services having an indispensable contribution to the activities of the members. Another of the conditions under Article 132 par. 1 lit. (f) concerns non-distortion of competition, which prohibits the exemption of services provided by an independent organisation in the event of abuse of rights. In our view, that conclusion is consistent with the Court’s earlier case-law.
• In Case T-363/25 UNIX, the Court assessed the  right to deduct VAT in the case of the purchase of goods through an ‘artificially’ inserted entity on the ground that it was impossible to purchase the goods directly from the producers. According to the Court of Justice, the right to deduct VAT must be granted if the goods declared on the invoices were supplied and used for taxable transactions, the seller and the buyer were in the position of payers and that the tax documents contained all the necessary elements. However, the right to deduct may be refused if the purchaser participates in VAT fraud or abuse of rights – whereas, according to the Court of Justice, even proving that the contract is fictitious would not in itself constitute proof of the existence of VAT fraud or abuse of rights. In our opinion, this is not a key decision for common practice in the Czech Republic.
• The opinion of the Advocate General of the CJEU in Case C-603/24 Stellantis reopens the question of the taxability of transfer pricing adjustments (TP) in the event of subsequent price changes of delivered cars. The manufacturer supplied the cars to the distributor and they were mutually subject to transfer pricing rules. At the same time, they had agreed that at the end of the year, the necessary adjustment of the price of the cars would always take place in relation to the amount of the distributor’s operating costs so that the distributor would report a reasonable economic result. The Advocate General very critically evaluated the previous case law of the Court of Justice and presented several options for how to treat TP adjustments from the perspective of VAT legislation.