With its judgment of July 8, 2026 (Case T-356/25), the EU General Court appears to have redrawn the boundaries of the joint and several liability of fiscal representatives. The ruling provides an opportunity to recall the scope of liability for customs representatives and VAT fiscal representatives according to domestic case law.

The Judgment of the General Court of the EU

The case concerns an Italian company registered for VAT purposes in Greece, which appointed a Greek custom agent to represent the company before the customs and tax authorities, submit periodic VAT returns, pay the tax due on behalf of the company, and handle customs formalities related to the clearance of goods.

Following a tax audit, the Greek tax administration held the customs fagent jointly and severally liable for an omission of VAT payments in relation to intra-EU supplies carried out by the Greek VAT number to customers established in Bulgaria and Italy, even though the mandate granted excluded such transactions.

The EU General Court was therefore asked to determine to what extent joint and several liability can be extended without conflicting with European Union law. The EU judges noted that under the European rule on fiscal representation (Articles 204 and 205 of the VAT Directive), the absence of limitations within national legislation does not, in itself, conflict with EU regulations.

However, it is here that the Court introduces a corrective measure that gives meaning to the entire decision. This possibility must be interpreted in light of the principle of proportionality. According to the EU judges, if the fiscal representative received a limited mandate—to manage returns, payments, and customs formalities—their joint and several liability cannot be automatic; instead, it must be verified what the fiscal representative could reasonably have known and what checks they could actually have exercised. This principle was already followed in the ALTI judgment (Court of Justice of the EU, May 20, 2021, Case C-4/20), which ruled on the recipient’s liability for VAT not paid by the supplier.

The Boundaries of Jointly and Several Liability for VAT Fiscal Representatives and Customs Representatives According to National Case Law

Italian legislation provides that the VAT fiscal representative is jointly and severally liable with the represented party for the latter’s VAT obligations (Article 17, paragraph 3, of the Italian VAT Decree).

However, the Italian Supreme Court has recognized an “entirely partial” liability of the fiscal representative, limited solely to the transactions that the non-resident principal actually assigned to them. The appointment alone is not enough: it is necessary to look at the actual content of the mandate, verify which obligations the representative assumed, and determine whether the disputed transactions passed through them. Regarding fraudulent transactions, the Court instead requires active involvement; the mere knowledgeability of the facts is not sufficient (Civil Court of Cassation, Tax Section, orders of August 19, 2025, nos. 23523 and 23524).

The customs representative, on the other hand, operates within the framework outlined by the Union Customs Code, which allows for both direct representation—where the representative acts in the name and on behalf of the principal—and indirect representation—where the representative acts in their own name but on behalf of the principal, assuming the role of declarant and becoming jointly and severally liable for the customs debt (customs duties, clearance operations handled on behalf of the principal, and import VAT, as a border tax resulting from national provisions complementary to the Customs Code).

The Court confirmed the joint and several liability of two customs consultants not on the basis of strict liability, but because they had participated in the irregular operation knowing, or reasonably being required to know, that the introduction of the goods was non-compliant (Supreme Court, judgment of May 6, 2026, no. 13005). Such liability was excluded when the forwarder managed to prove that they had verified the accuracy of the information received with the qualified diligence required by civil law regulations and had acted in good faith (Article 1176, paragraph 2, of the Italian Civil Code – Supreme Court, judgment of January 24, 2025, no. 1776).

Merit case law is moving in the same direction, having recently excluded the joint and several liability of the indirect representative since they had acted with professional diligence and the information received appeared fully reliable (i.e., the documentation appeared regular and the indirect representative could not have known about the conduct of the exporter and importer, which emerged only later) (Tax Court of Justice of Second Instance of Liguria, judgment of March 18, 2026, no. 245, and in the same sense, Tax Court of Justice of Second Instance of Emilia Romagna, judgment of January 24, 2025, no. 61).

What to Do to Limit Joint and Several Liability?

The framework emerging between Luxembourg and the Italian courts appears to be consistent. For both the fiscal representative and the customs representative, joint and several liability should not be presumed solely by virtue of their qualification. It should be reconstructed based on the mandate actually received, the information actually available, and the diligence actually required.

Therefore, those who assume the role of customs representative and/or VAT fiscal representative should clearly outline the scope of their mandate and, above all, keep track of the information/documents requested and received in order to avoid falling within the scope of joint and several liability.



—-
Edited by 
Michele Ferrari
Lorenzo Calvo
Eugenia Bertonazzi