Judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 15 July 2026.#Sampension Livsforsikring A/S v Skatteministeriet.#Request for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret.#Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Taxable persons – VAT group – Concept of ‘persons closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links’ – Measures to prevent tax evasion or avoidance – Article 11 of Directive 2006/112/EC – Legislation of a Member State making it possible to include in a VAT group persons which are not taxable or are exempt from VAT – Condition of 100% ownership of the capital of the other members of the group in order for a VAT group to be formed.#Case T-268/25.

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, sitting with five Judges)

15 July 2026 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Taxable persons – VAT group – Concept of ‘persons closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links’ – Measures to prevent tax evasion or avoidance – Article 11 of Directive 2006/112/EC – Legislation of a Member State making it possible to include in a VAT group persons which are not taxable or are exempt from VAT – Condition of 100% ownership of the capital of the other members of the group in order for a VAT group to be formed)

In Case T‑268/25,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Østre Landsret (High Court of Eastern Denmark, Denmark), made by decision of 27 March 2025, received at the Court of Justice on 1 April 2025, in the proceedings

Sampension Livsforsikring A/S

v

Skatteministeriet,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, sitting with five Judges),

composed of N. Półtorak (Rapporteur), President, T. Pynnä, G. Hesse, G. Steinfatt and D. Petrlík, Judges,

Advocate General: M. Brkan,

Registrar: H. Eriksson, Administrator,

having regard to the transmission of the request for a preliminary ruling to the General Court by the Court of Justice on 25 April 2025, pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union,

having regard to the fact that the case concerns the area referred to in point (a) of the first paragraph of Article 50b of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the fact that there is no independent question relating to interpretation within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 50b of that statute,

having regard to the written part of the procedure,

further to the hearing on 2 February 2026,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        Sampension Livsforsikring, by S. Andersen and L. Kjær, lawyer,

–        the Danish Government, by C. Maertens, acting as Agent, and by R. Andersen and B. Søes Petersen, lawyer,

–        the European Commission, by M.-L. Ehlers Defontaine and M. Herold, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 22 April 2026,

gives the following

Judgment

1        The present request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1; ‘the VAT Directive’).

2        The request has been made in proceedings between Sampension Livsforsikring A/S and the Skatteministeriet (Ministry of Taxation, Denmark) concerning the refusal by the Danish tax authorities of the application for joint registration in respect of value added tax (VAT) submitted by that company and its subsidiary, Sampension Administrationsselskab A/S (‘the management company’).

 Legal framework

 European Union law

3        Article 11 of the VAT Directive provides:

‘After consulting the advisory committee on value added tax …, each Member State may regard as a single taxable person any persons established in the territory of that Member State who, while legally independent, are closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links.

A Member State exercising the option provided for in the first paragraph, may adopt any measures needed to prevent tax evasion or avoidance through the use of this provision.’

 Danish law

4        Paragraph 47(4) of the lov om merværdiafgift (momsloven) (Law on VAT) provides:

‘A number of taxable persons exclusively carrying out activities subject to registration may, on application, be registered under a single number. The Customs and Tax Administration may allow persons carrying out activities subject to VAT registration to be registered under a single number with persons carrying out activities not subject to registration and persons not engaged in economic activity. The grant of that authorisation shall be subject to the condition that one of the persons (inter alia, the parent company) be the owner of the other person or persons (inter alia, subsidiaries and sub-subsidiaries) registered under the same number, inter alia by directly or indirectly holding all of their capital. …’

 The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

5        Sampension Livsforsikring is an insurance company engaged in life-insurance and other financial activities, connected with both occupational pensions and company pensions. Some of those activities are exempt from VAT under Paragraph 13 of the Law on VAT.

6        Until 1 January 2017, Sampension Livsforsikring was, in accordance with Paragraph 47(4) of the Law on VAT, registered for VAT together with the management company under a single number and accordingly formed with it a ‘VAT group’. The management company, which took charge of the administrative tasks of Sampension Livsforsikring and those of two pension funds which do not belong to that group, was wholly owned by Sampension Livsforsikring.

7        On 1 January 2017 both pension funds for whose administrative tasks the management company was responsible each acquired 3% of that company’s share capital.

8        As a result of that acquisition, Sampension Livsforsikring no longer owned 100% of the capital of the management company. The VAT group which it formed with that management company therefore ceased to exist since it did not meet the condition, laid down in Paragraph 47(4) of the Law on VAT, that, in a VAT group formed between persons carrying out activities subject to VAT registration and persons carrying out activities not subject to registration, one of the persons in that group must own, directly or indirectly, 100% of the capital of the other persons in that group (‘the 100% ownership condition’).

9        By letter of 15 January 2019, Sampension Livsforsikring submitted a request to the Erhvervsstyrelsen (Danish Business Authority) that it be re-registered jointly with the management company for VAT purposes, stating that the 100% ownership condition did not comply with EU law, in particular Article 11 of the VAT Directive.

10      By decision of 8 February 2019, the Skattestyrelsen (Danish Tax Agency) rejected the request for registration of Sampension Livsforsikring and the management company under a single number, on the ground that the 100% ownership condition had not been met.

11      On 13 December 2021, the Danish Tax Agency’s decision was upheld by the Landsskatteretten (National Tax Tribunal, Denmark), which relied on the same ground as that agency and, in addition, stated that Sampension Livsforsikring could not rely on Article 11 of the VAT Directive since that provision did not have direct effect.

12      Sampension Livsforsikring appealed against the decision of the Landsskatteretten (National Tax Tribunal) before the retten i Lyngby (Lyngby District Court, Denmark), which referred the case to the Østre Landsret (High Court of Eastern Denmark, Denmark), which is the referring court, on the ground that the case raised issues of principle.

13      In those circumstances, the Østre Landsret (High Court of Eastern Denmark) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)      Is the first paragraph of Article 11 of [the VAT Directive], read in conjunction with the second paragraph thereof, to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the present case, under which eligibility for creating a VAT group comprising persons [engaged in activity not subject to registration] or not engaged in economic activity [is] subject to the condition that one person in the VAT group directly or indirectly owns 100% of the other person or persons in the VAT group?

(2)      If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does Article 11 of [the VAT Directive] then have direct effect in the Member States, with the result that taxable persons are entitled, vis-à-vis a Member State, to be registered as a VAT group in cases where the legislation of that Member State does not comply with that provision and cannot be interpreted in accordance therewith?’

 Consideration of the questions referred

 The first question

14      By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 11 of the VAT Directive must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes eligibility to form a VAT group, comprising, on the one hand, persons carrying out activities subject to VAT and, on the other, persons carrying out activities exempt from VAT or not engaged in economic activity, subject to the condition that one person in the VAT group owns, directly or indirectly, all of the capital of the other person or persons in that VAT group.

 The first paragraph of Article 11 of the VAT Directive

15      It is necessary, first of all, to examine whether a 100% ownership condition can be based on the first paragraph of Article 11 of the VAT Directive, since that provision makes forming a VAT group subject to the members thereof being closely bound to one another by financial links.

16      In the first place, it must be borne in mind that, as regards the objectives pursued by Article 11 of the VAT Directive, the EU legislature, by adopting that provision, intended, either in the interests of simplifying administration or with a view to combating abuses such as the splitting-up of one undertaking among several taxable persons so that each might benefit from a special VAT scheme, to ensure that Member States would not be obliged to treat as taxable persons those whose ‘independence’ is purely a legal technicality (see judgment of 15 April 2021, Finanzamt für Körperschaften Berlin, C‑868/19, not published, EU:C:2021:285, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).

17      It must also be borne in mind that treatment as a single taxable person under the first paragraph of Article 11 of the VAT Directive precludes persons who are thus closely linked from continuing to submit VAT declarations separately and from continuing to be identified, within and outside their group, as taxable persons, since the single taxable person alone is authorised to submit such declarations (see judgment of 15 April 2021, Finanzamt für Körperschaften Berlin, C‑868/19, not published, EU:C:2021:285, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).

18      In the second place, the condition laid down in the first paragraph of Article 11 of the VAT Directive that the formation of a VAT group is subject to the existence of close financial, economic and organisational links between the persons concerned needs to be specified at national level, with the result that that provision is conditional inasmuch as it involves the application of national provisions determining the actual scope of such links (judgment of 15 April 2021, Finanzamt für Körperschaften Berlin, C‑868/19, not published, EU:C:2021:285, paragraph 43).

19      However, it is important, for the uniform application of the VAT Directive, that the concept of ‘close financial links’, within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 11 of that directive, is given an autonomous and uniform interpretation. Such an interpretation is necessary, despite the optional nature, as regards the Member States, of the scheme for which that article provides, in order to avoid differences in application of that scheme between one Member State and another when it is implemented (judgment of 15 April 2021, Finanzamt für Körperschaften Berlin, C‑868/19, not published, EU:C:2021:285, paragraph 44).

20      Furthermore, it is not apparent from either Article 11 of the VAT Directive or the system established by that directive that that provision is a derogating or special provision which must be interpreted narrowly (judgment of 1 December 2022, Finanzamt T (Internal supplies within a VAT group), C‑269/20, EU:C:2022:944, paragraph 42). In particular, as follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice, the condition relating to the existence of close financial links cannot be interpreted narrowly (judgment of 15 April 2021, Finanzamt für Körperschaften Berlin, C‑868/19, not published, EU:C:2021:285, paragraph 45).

21      In the third place, it is apparent from the case-law of the Court of Justice that the first paragraph of Article 11 in the VAT Directive does not provide that each Member State is able to impose conditions on economic operators as regards eligibility to form a VAT group other than the condition of being established in the territory of that Member State and that of being closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links (see, to that effect, judgments of 25 April 2013, Commission v Sweden, C‑480/10, EU:C:2013:263, paragraph 35, and of 25 April 2013, Commission v Finland, C‑74/11, not published, EU:C:2013:266, paragraph 63).

22      In addition, the Court of Justice has clarified that the fact that the nature of the relationship binding those economic operators is merely one of ‘closeness’ may, in the absence of any other requirement, not lead to the conclusion that the EU legislature intended to reserve the benefit of the VAT group scheme only to entities in a relationship of subordination with the controlling company of the group of undertakings considered. The existence of such a relationship of subordination can, in some situations, allow it to be presumed that relations between the entities concerned are close, but it cannot, in principle, be a condition which is necessary for the formation of a VAT group (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 April 2021, Finanzamt für Körperschaften Berlin, C‑868/19, not published, EU:C:2021:285, paragraph 47).

23      The Court of Justice has also held that the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1; ‘the Sixth Directive’) precluded a condition of national law requiring, in order for close financial links to be established, that a majority of voting rights be held in addition to a majority holding in the share capital (see, to that effect, judgment of 1 December 2022, Norddeutsche Gesellschaft für Diakonie, C‑141/20, EU:C:2022:943, paragraph 71).

24      The case-law cited in paragraph 23 above remains relevant to the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 11 of the VAT Directive, since that provision essentially reproduces the wording of the second subparagraph of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive.

25      In the present case, it should be noted that a 100% ownership condition for the formation of a VAT group comprising persons carrying out activities not subject to VAT registration or not engaged in economic activity goes beyond what is meant by the condition relating to close financial links, as interpreted by the case-law cited in paragraphs 18 to 23 above.

26      In that regard, it follows from the case-law cited in paragraphs 18 to 23 above that, although a relationship of subordination, inter alia in the form of the 100% ownership of capital, can make it possible to presume that relations between the entities concerned are close, it cannot be a condition necessary for the formation of a VAT group. Furthermore, close financial links can also exist in situations where the capital holding is less than 100% since the persons concerned remain closely bound by financial, economic and organisational links within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 11 of the VAT Directive.

27      Consequently, as, moreover, the Danish Government acknowledged at the hearing, a 100% ownership condition cannot be regarded as simply clarifying the condition that there be close financial links within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 11 of the VAT Directive.

 The second paragraph of Article 11 of the VAT Directive

28      It is necessary, secondly, to examine whether a 100% ownership condition can still be regarded as being among the measures which may be taken by Member States, under the second paragraph of Article 11 of the VAT Directive, to prevent tax evasion or avoidance through the use of the first paragraph of that article (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 April 2021, Finanzamt für Körperschaften Berlin, C‑868/19, not published, EU:C:2021:285, paragraph 56).

29      In that regard, it must be borne in mind that, although Article 11 of the VAT Directive does not expressly provide that Member States may impose on economic operators conditions other than those set out in the first paragraph of that article as regards eligibility to form a VAT group, those States are, in the context of their margin of discretion, entitled to make the application of the VAT group scheme subject to certain restrictions provided that they fall within the objectives of that directive of preventing abusive practices or behaviour or combating tax evasion or tax avoidance, and provided that EU law and its general principles, in particular the principles of proportionality and fiscal neutrality, are respected (see judgment of 15 April 2021, Finanzamt für Körperschaften Berlin, C‑868/19, not published, EU:C:2021:285, paragraph 57 and the case-law cited).

30      It should be emphasised that it is for the referring court to determine whether a 100% ownership condition serves to achieve the objectives of preventing abusive practices or behaviour or combating tax evasion or avoidance (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 July 2015, Larentia + Minerva and Marenave Schiffahrt, C‑108/14 and C‑109/14, EU:C:2015:496, paragraphs 43 and 46).

31      However, in order to give the referring court a useful answer, the Court of Justice may, in a spirit of cooperation with national courts, provide it with all the guidance that it deems necessary (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 December 2008, Magoora, C‑414/07, EU:C:2008:766, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).

32      In that regard, the Danish Government submits that the 100% ownership condition is intended to prevent the loss of tax revenue and the windfall effects which may result from the inclusion, in VAT groups, of persons carrying out activities exempt from VAT or not engaged in economic activity. According to that government, the participation of those persons in VAT groups would allow them, inter alia, to acquire goods and services from the other members of the group without paying VAT. The benefit of the VAT group scheme should, for such persons, be limited to groups comprised of a company and its wholly owned subsidiaries; otherwise, the extension of that scheme to persons carrying out activities exempt from VAT or not engaged in economic activity which do not meet that condition would remove certain VAT revenue from the budget. Limiting the possibility of creating VAT groups thus contributes to combating tax avoidance.

33      It must, however, be noted, in the first place, that the mere existence of a tax advantage resulting from the implementation, by a Member State, of the VAT group scheme provided for by the VAT Directive cannot, in itself, amount, as the Danish Government argues, to tax evasion or avoidance within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 11 of that directive.

34      Transactions effected for remuneration between members of the same group are not subject to VAT (judgment of 11 July 2024, Finanzamt T II, C‑184/23, EU:C:2024:599, paragraph 47). Accordingly, the fact that members of a VAT group may derive economic benefits from their participation in such a group is a necessary consequence of a Member State’s choice to allow, in the context of its tax policy, the formation of VAT groups.

35      In addition, taxable persons are generally free to choose the organisational structures and the form of transactions which they consider to be most appropriate for their economic activities and for the purpose of limiting their tax burdens (judgment of 25 May 2023, Dyrektor Izby Administracji Skarbowej w Warszawie (VAT – Fictitious acquisition), C‑114/22, EU:C:2023:430, paragraph 45).

36      It follows that the mere reduction in tax revenue resulting from the Member State’s choice to implement the VAT group mechanism, which forms an integral part of the common system of VAT, cannot, in itself, constitute tax evasion or avoidance within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 11 of the VAT Directive.

37      Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that the Court of Justice has already held that a purely theoretical risk of tax evasion or avoidance cannot form the basis of a general and absolute rule which restricts access to the VAT group scheme (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 April 2021, Finanzamt für Körperschaften Berlin, C‑868/19, not published, EU:C:2021:285, paragraph 61). Moreover, the objectives put forward by the Danish Government and referred to in paragraph 32 above do not relate to the risk of tax evasion or avoidance.

38      In the second place, it is for the referring court to assess, in the light of the principle of proportionality, whether the 100% ownership condition is necessary and appropriate for attaining the objectives of combating tax evasion or avoidance.

39      In that regard, a measure can be considered to be an appropriate means of securing the achievement of the objective pursued only if it genuinely reflects a concern to secure the attainment of that objective in a consistent and systematic manner (see, by analogy, judgment of 13 May 2026, Swedish Match (Simplified justification arrangements), C‑322/25, EU:C:2026:402, paragraph 28). That might not be the case as regards the 100% ownership condition, since the tax advantage which may result from the inclusion, in a VAT group, of a person carrying out an activity exempt from VAT or not engaged in economic activity is the same – whether 100% or less of the capital of that person is owned by another member of the group – so long as the condition that there be close financial links within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 11 of the VAT Directive is met. The 100% ownership condition therefore makes a distinction not on the basis of a real risk of tax avoidance, but on the sole basis of the capital structure of the group. Where the objective of combating tax evasion or avoidance can be attained by means of less restrictive measures, systematic exclusion on the basis of an abstract criterion, which is not connected to a real risk of tax evasion or avoidance, may go beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 April 2021, Finanzamt für Körperschaften Berlin, C‑868/19, not published, EU:C:2021:285, paragraphs 61 to 64).

40      In the third place, it is also for the referring court to ascertain whether the 100% ownership condition complies with the principle of fiscal neutrality, which precludes inter alia treating economic operators carrying out the same transactions differently for VAT purposes (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 April 2021, Finanzamt für Körperschaften Berlin, C‑868/19, not published, EU:C:2021:285, paragraph 65 and the case-law cited).

41      In that regard, national legislation which prevents persons carrying out an activity exempt from VAT or not engaged in economic activity whose capital is not entirely owned by another member of the group from benefiting from the VAT group scheme, even though they meet the condition of being closely bound by financial, economic and organisational links within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 11 of the VAT Directive, may lead to a difference in treatment between economic operators which carry out the same transactions and which are, in respect of all the criteria set out in that provision, in comparable situations.

42      It falls to the referring court to ascertain, in the light of all the foregoing considerations, whether the 100% ownership condition is a measure needed to prevent tax evasion or avoidance.

43      In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question is that Article 11 of the VAT Directive must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes eligibility to form a VAT group, comprising, on the one hand, persons carrying out activities subject to VAT and, on the other, persons carrying out activities exempt from VAT or not engaged in economic activity, subject to the condition that one person in the VAT group owns, directly or indirectly, all of the capital of the other person or persons in that VAT group, unless that requirement constitutes a necessary and appropriate measure for attaining the objectives of combating tax evasion or avoidance.

 The second question

44      By its second question, which is referred only in the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 11 of the VAT Directive must be interpreted as having direct effect, with the result that taxable persons are entitled, vis-à-vis a Member State, to be registered as a VAT group where the legislation of that Member State does not comply with that provision and cannot be interpreted in accordance therewith.

45      It should be borne in mind, first of all, that, whenever the provisions of a directive appear, so far as their subject matter is concerned, to be unconditional and sufficiently precise, they may be relied upon before the national courts by individuals against the State where the latter has failed to implement the directive in domestic law by the end of the period prescribed or where it has failed to implement the directive correctly. A provision of EU law is unconditional where it sets forth an obligation which is not qualified by any condition, or subject, in its implementation or effects, to the taking of any measure either by the institutions of the European Union or by the Member States (judgment of 16 July 2015, Larentia + Minerva and Marenave Schiffahrt, C‑108/14 and C‑109/14, EU:C:2015:496, paragraphs 48 and 49 and the case-law cited).

46      The Court of Justice has also already ruled, in its judgment of 16 July 2015, Larentia + Minerva and Marenave Schiffahrt (C‑108/14 and C‑109/14, EU:C:2015:496), on the direct effect of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive, to which Article 11 of the VAT Directive corresponds.

47      In that regard, the Court of Justice held that the condition laid down in Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive that the formation of a VAT group is subject to the existence of close financial, economic and organisational links between the persons concerned needed to be specified at national level and that that article, inasmuch as it involved the application of national provisions determining the actual scope of such links, was therefore conditional. The Court of Justice thus concluded that that provision did not satisfy the conditions necessary for it to have direct effect (judgment of 16 July 2015, Larentia + Minerva and Marenave Schiffahrt, C‑108/14 and C‑109/14, EU:C:2015:496, paragraphs 50 and 51).

48      The Court of Justice accordingly ruled that Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive may not be considered to have direct effect allowing taxable persons to claim the benefit thereof against their Member State in the event that that State’s legislation is not compatible with that provision and cannot be interpreted in a manner consistent with it (judgment of 16 July 2015, Larentia + Minerva and Marenave Schiffahrt, C‑108/14 and C‑109/14, EU:C:2015:496, paragraph 52).

49      That case-law remains relevant for the interpretation of Article 11 of the VAT Directive. First, Article 11 of the VAT Directive reproduces, in essence, the wording of Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive. Secondly, it is apparent from the judgment of 16 July 2015, Larentia + Minerva and Marenave Schiffahrt (C‑108/14 and C‑109/14, EU:C:2015:496), that the implementation of the VAT group scheme necessarily involves the application of national legislation determining the actual scope of the close links envisaged in that provision.

50      The fact that, in the present case, unlike the questions referred for a preliminary ruling in the case which gave rise to the judgment of 16 July 2015, Larentia + Minerva and Marenave Schiffahrt (C‑108/14 and C‑109/14, EU:C:2015:496), the present question referred does not concern entitlement to VAT deduction, but entitlement to be registered as a VAT group, is not such as to call that conclusion into question. In both cases, the reliance on Article 4(4) of the Sixth Directive or Article 11 of the VAT Directive concerns the provisions relating to the formation of a VAT group, the actual scope of which, as regards the condition laid down by those provisions requiring the existence of close links, is specified by that national legislation.

51      In that regard, it should be pointed out that any national court, hearing a case within its jurisdiction, has, as an organ of a Member State, the obligation to disapply any provision of national law which is contrary to a provision of EU law with direct effect in the case pending before it. By contrast, a provision of EU law which does not have direct effect may not be relied on, as such, in a dispute coming under EU law in order to disapply a provision of national law that conflicts with it (judgment of 24 June 2019, Popławski, C‑573/17, EU:C:2019:530, paragraphs 61 and 62).

52      Nevertheless, it follows from settled case-law that the principle that national law must be interpreted in conformity with EU law, by virtue of which the national court is required, to the greatest extent possible, to interpret national law in conformity with the requirements of EU law, is inherent in the system of the Treaties, since it permits the national court, within the limits of its jurisdiction, to ensure the full effectiveness of EU law when it determines the dispute before it. That obligation to interpret national law in conformity with EU law requires the national court to consider, where necessary, the whole body of national law in order to assess to what extent it may be applied so as not to produce a result contrary to EU law (see judgment of 12 May 2021, technoRent International and Others, C‑844/19, EU:C:2021:378, paragraph 53 and the case-law cited).

53      In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the second question is that Article 11 of the VAT Directive must be interpreted as not having direct effect allowing taxable persons to rely on it against their Member State in the event that that State’s legislation is not compatible with that provision and cannot be interpreted in a manner consistent with it.

 Costs

54      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the General Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

On those grounds,

THE GENERAL COURT (Second Chamber, sitting with five Judges)

hereby rules:

1.      Article 11 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax

must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes eligibility to form a value added tax (VAT) group, comprising, on the one hand, persons carrying out activities subject to VAT and, on the other, persons carrying out activities exempt from VAT or not engaged in economic activity, subject to the condition that one person in the VAT group owns, directly or indirectly, all of the capital of the other person or persons in that VAT group, unless that requirement constitutes a necessary and appropriate measure for attaining the objectives of combating tax evasion or avoidance;

2.      Article 11 of Directive 2006/112

must be interpreted as not having direct effect allowing taxable persons to rely on it against their Member State in the event that that State’s legislation is not compatible with that provision and cannot be interpreted in a manner consistent with it.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 15 July 2026.

[Signatures]

---

*      Language of the case: Danish.