A recurring issue in practice is that, despite the utmost diligence, evidence is missing. What is to be done in that case? Does this cause the VAT exemption to fail? Because of formal deficiencies?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
By judgment of 13 November 2025, Case C-639\/24 (“FLO VENEER”), the CJEU has significantly clarified<\/strong> the evidentiary requirements for intra-Community supplies. The documents provided for under Article 45a of the Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 282\/2011 merely constitute a rebuttable presumption; the exemption may not be refused solely on the ground that the standard evidence is missing. Rather, all evidence submitted must be assessed, provided that it demonstrates the actual movement of the goods to another member state. This means that, in exceptional cases, other evidence may also be relied upon, provided this is not done with fraudulent intent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This had already been decided in the same way in the area of export supplies: with regard to export supplies, the CJEU held that the exemption must be granted where the goods have actually reached a third country, even in the presence of formal irregularities (CJEU, judgment of 28 March 2019, Case C-275\/18, “Vin\u0161”).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conclusion<\/strong>
The CJEU’s recent case law strengthens the substantive approach (“substance over form”) to evidence, while at the same time strictly upholding the requirement of an actual movement of goods. For practice, this means greater flexibility in cases of documentation shortcomings, while the requirements for the actual execution of cross-border supplies remain unchanged and demanding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n