A customs agent in Greece signs the VAT returns of a foreign company and pays the tax shown on them, without ever keeping its books, negotiating its contracts, or knowing what it actually sold.  When that company turns out to owe over three million euros in unpaid VAT, can the agent be made to pay the shortfall? 

On 8 July 2026, the General Court answered that question in Case T-356/25, Rapera (a fictitious case name), concerning Articles 204 and 205 of the VAT Directive and the position of tax representatives appointed by non-established taxable persons. Unusually, the case reached judgment without an Opinion: after hearing Advocate General Martín y Pérez de  Nanclares, the Court decided that this stage was not needed. 

Facts and circumstances 

AY is a customs agent resident in Greece, registered under a 2022 power of attorney as the "tax agent" of O, a company registered in Italy. Her mandate covered O's tax representation before the customs and tax authorities, filing periodic VAT returns, paying assessed amounts on O's behalf,  and completing customs formalities for clearing O's cargo in Greece. 

O holds both an Italian and a Greek VAT number and mainly markets cellulose, stored in Greece after import from Finland. In 2023, the Greek tax authority, the Anexartiti Archi Dimosion Esodon  ("the AADE"), inspected O's activities for 2020 to 2022, covering intra-Community supplies made under O's Greek VAT number to customers in Bulgaria and Italy, and supplies made under its  Italian number to customers in Greece. The inspection found that O's Greek business had failed to pay VAT totalling EUR 3,344,061.47, and the AADE imposed urgent precautionary measures against both O and AY, including freezing part of the funds they held in Greek bank accounts. 

The dispute and the questions referred 

AY challenged the measures before the Dioikitiko Protodikeio Thessalonikis (Administrative Court of First Instance, Thessaloniki), the referring court, disputing both her status as O's tax representative and her joint and several liability. She argued that she had only filed VAT returns and paid the corresponding tax, without keeping accounting records, concluding contracts, or having any knowledge of O's transactions, and without responsibility for transporting the goods or paying O's suppliers. 

The AADE maintained that, as O's tax representative, AY was jointly and severally liable under Article 35(1)(c) of the Greek VAT Code, which makes the tax representative liable for payment, and Article 55, which imposes joint and several liability. Uncertain how to apply the Court's case law, including ALTI (C-4/20) and U.I. (Indirect customs representative) (C-714/20), the referring court asked four questions. 

First, does Article 205, read with proportionality, preclude a national rule under which a person who merely files VAT returns, without keeping records of the principal's transactions, is jointly and severally liable for VAT, where the authorities and courts cannot examine involvement, awareness, or good faith? 

Second, can a tax representative be liable as a debtor under Article 204 without being involved in the taxable person's activity, and does that provision preclude a national rule making such liability automatic?  

Third, does it matter whether the transaction was carried out under the home-state VAT number or that of the Member State where VAT is due? Fourth, can a person be liable simultaneously as debtor under Article 204 and as jointly and severally liable under Article 205? 

Legal framework 

Article 204 of the VAT Directive allows Member States, where the person liable for VAT is a taxable person not established in the Member State where the VAT is due, to permit that person to appoint a tax representative as the person liable instead; in certain cross-border situations without adequate mutual assistance arrangements, Member States may even require such an appointment, subject to conditions and procedures left to each Member State. 

Article 205 allows  Member States to go further, providing that a person other than the person liable for VAT is to be held jointly and severally liable for its payment in the situations covered by Articles 193 to 200 and  202 to 204. Articles 213 and 214 underpin these rules with identification obligations: every taxable person must declare the start of its activity, and Member States must allocate it an individual VAT  number. 

Greek law transposed these provisions through the VAT Code. Article 35(1)(c) designates the tax representative of a taxable person established outside Greece as the person liable for the tax on that person's Greek-taxed activities.

Article 36(4)(d) and (e) require such an appointment and, for representatives of taxable persons in another Member State, exempt them from keeping accounts or issuing accounting documents for the principal's transactions. Article 55(a) and (d) extend joint and several liability to the persons referred to in Article 36(7), including the tax representative, and to non-taxable persons receiving supplies from a taxable person established outside Greece or its representative. 

Separately, the more recent Code of Tax Procedure distinguishes a "tax agent," who bears no responsibility for the taxpayer's obligations, from the "tax representative"  governed by the VAT Code. 

The Court noted, as a preliminary matter, that the VAT Directive contains no general definition of  "tax representative." Article 204 refers specifically to representatives appointed as the person liable for VAT, distinguishing them from intermediaries who act on a principal's behalf without assuming that status. The Directive sets no criteria for that classification but does not prevent  Member States from basing it on the representative's actual activities, provided this is applied consistently with EU law. Whether AY in fact met the conditions for classification as O's Article  204 representative was, the Court noted, for the referring court to determine. 

The judgment of the General Court 

Article 204: liability without involvement is not, by itself, precluded 

Taking the second question first, the Court held that Article 204 does not prevent a tax representative from being appointed as the person liable for VAT even without participating in the taxable person's transactions. The wording does not make such an appointment conditional on actual involvement, and instead grants Member States discretion over the conditions of appointment. 

This fits the broader scheme of Articles 193 to 204, which identify the person liable for VAT in different situations to secure efficient collection, particularly in cross-border cases,  since a tax representative gives the tax authority a more accessible interlocutor than a non-established taxable person would be. 

A requirement of actual participation would narrow the usefulness of that option, so its absence from national law is not, in itself, contrary to the  Directive. Member States remain bound, however, by legal certainty and proportionality when laying down the relevant conditions. 

Article 205: joint and several liability cannot be unconditional 

The first question fell to be answered differently, since it concerned a representative who, unlike under Article 204, had not been appointed as the person liable for VAT, but was instead exposed to joint and several liability under Article 205 for merely filing returns and paying the assessed tax.  

Article 205 leaves Member States a degree of discretion in determining which other persons may be held jointly and severally liable, subject to the situations covered by that provision and to the principles of legal certainty and proportionality. Drawing on Vlaamse Oliemaatschappij (C 499/10), the Court reiterated that national measures may not go beyond what is necessary to protect the public purse, and that strict, unconditional joint and several liability, under which a person cannot show they had nothing to do with the acts of the person actually liable, is disproportionate. 

It is not, however, contrary to EU law to require a person to take every reasonably available step to ensure a transaction does not contribute to tax evasion; good faith, due diligence and the absence of any role in fraud are relevant factors. Since Article 55 of the Greek VAT Code applied unconditionally, the Court concluded that Article 205, read with proportionality,  precludes joint and several liability for a representative in AY's position where neither the tax authority nor the courts can examine her involvement, awareness of the risk of non-payment, or good faith and diligence.

On the remaining questions, the Court held that it makes no difference for either answer which  VAT number the transaction was carried out under, since what determines liability under Article  204 is whether one of the listed situations applies, not the number used. Because Article 205  applies only to a "person other than" the one liable for VAT, a representative appointed as liable under Article 204 cannot simultaneously be jointly and severally liable under Article 205 for the same debt: the two forms of liability are mutually exclusive. 

What this means in practice 

The judgment draws a clear line between two very different roles a tax representative can occupy.  A representative formally appointed as the person liable for VAT under Article 204 takes on that status by virtue of the appointment itself, and Member States are free not to condition it on actual involvement in the principal's business, precisely because that flexibility helps ensure VAT gets collected. Anyone accepting such an appointment should understand that a lack of participation will not, without more, shield them from liability. 

A representative not appointed under Article 204, but exposed to joint and several liability under national implementations of Article 205, stands on different ground. There, liability cannot be strict or automatic: authorities and courts must be able to assess whether the representative was actually involved in the principal's economic activity, knew or should have known that tax would go unpaid, and acted in good faith. A national rule that forecloses that inquiry, as the Greek provision at issue did, goes further than proportionality allows. 

For customs agents, fiscal representatives and similar service providers acting for non-established taxable persons across the EU, the lesson is to understand precisely which capacity they are appointed in, and to keep evidence of the limits of their role and the diligence exercised,  since that evidence may be decisive if a joint and several liability claim is raised against them.