VAT procedure costs must not deter claims, EU principle says

A taxable person must not be deterred from pursuing a VAT claim because the national procedural route costs too muchSkatteverket, particularly when the cost of going to court is weighed against the size of the disputed debtSkatteverket. That cost-deterrence test is how Skatteverket now states the effectiveness principleSkatteverket, citing T-569/25, X-GmbH, point 44Skatteverket.

The starting point is familiar. A national procedural provision must not make it practically impossible or excessively difficult to exercise rights individuals derive from EU law.Europa The guidance illustrates that long-standing limb with C-35/05 Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken points 37-41 and C-835/18 SC Terracult points 31-32, including the corollary that where reimbursement of VAT would become impossible or excessively difficult, the state must provide the instruments a recipient needs to recover tax invoiced but not due.

The same effectiveness principle also works in the other direction. Member states must put in place effective and dissuasive sanctions to counter infringements of the harmonised VAT rules and to protect the financial interests of the Union. The guidance cites C-418/22, Cezam, point 28 for that duty. Effectiveness therefore constrains both lax enforcement and overbearing procedure.

The new sentence adds the costs limb to that framework. Procedural rules of a member state must not entail such unreasonable costs that the taxable person is discouraged from bringing proceedings.Skatteverket The assessment turns above all on the relationship between the costs a judicial procedure would entail and the magnitude of the disputed debt.Skatteverket A filing fee, security, mandatory representation cost or cost-shifting rule that looks neutral on paper can still breach the principle if, for a small disputed amount, the price of litigating dwarfs what is at stake.Skatteverket

In practice the argument belongs in VAT disputes where the economics of challenging an assessment are adverse. Quantify the full procedural cost of each available remedy — court fees, representation, expert evidence, translation, interest exposure while the dispute runs — and set that total against the disputed VAT. Where the ratio shows that a reasonable business would abandon a meritorious claim, invoke the effectiveness principle and point to T-569/25 point 44 together with the Reemtsma and Terracult line. It bars a procedural design whose cost effect is to deter proceedings.Skatteverket

Keep the comparison concrete and on the record from the outset: the amount in dispute, each cost item with its legal basis, and why a cheaper effective route was unavailable. That record is what lets a court test proportionality rather than treat the cost complaint as general hardship.

Legal basis is C-35/05 Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken, C-835/18 SC Terracult and C-418/22 Cezam, with T-569/25 X-GmbH point 44 as reflected in Skatteverket's Rättsprinciper guidance on effektivitetsprincipenSkatteverket.