TAR Lazio Hearing, January 28, 2026: Key Issues for Non-EU Companies and VIES Registration
A pivotal hearing at the Lazio Regional Administrative Court (TAR) has brought critical attention to the fiscal rules governing non-EU companies operating in Italy. The core dispute revolves around the application of the Italian Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) Decree of December 4, 2024, concerning the VIES system and stringent anti-evasion measures that mandate substantial financial guarantees. This article breaks down the events of the court hearing on January 28, 2026, and outlines the immediate practical consequences for foreign businesses.
The Core Dispute: Non-EU Entities, Fiscal Representatives, and New VIES Rules
Consider a company based outside the European Union—for instance, in China—that wishes to sell its products within Italy and the broader EU market. To do so legally, it must appoint a fiscal representative in Italy and register with the VIES system, which records intra-community transactions for VAT purposes.
However, the new MEF Decree enacted last December introduced rigorous anti-tax evasion measures. In practice, this means most non-EU companies seeking VIES registration are now required to provide a substantial financial guarantee, often in the form of a €50,000 bank surety valid for three years. While the stated goal is to safeguard state revenues, many businesses argue this requirement is excessively burdensome and unfairly applied.
The Appeal to the TAR Lazio and the Preliminary Hurdle of Admissibility
A coalition of approximately 20 Chinese companies and two trade associations filed an appeal with the TAR Lazio, seeking to challenge and suspend these new regulations. Following an initial rejection by the TAR and a subsequent intervention by the Council of State—which acknowledged the legal complexity of the case—the matter proceeded to the crucial hearing on January 28, 2026.
Before even addressing the substance of the tax dispute, the court had to resolve a fundamental procedural issue: the admissibility of the appeal. The central question was: Was this legal challenge filed within the permissible time limits, or was it late?
Standard procedure allows 60 days to file an appeal with the TAR from the notification of the contested act. However, Article 41, paragraph 5 of the Italian Code of Administrative Process provides for an exception: an extended deadline of 150 days. This longer window is designed to protect parties based abroad who may face logistical challenges.
The Legal Dilemma: Domestic or Foreign Entity for Procedural Purposes?
The heart of the courtroom debate centered on precisely when this 150-day rule applies. In this specific case, the appealing companies are headquartered abroad but have an appointed fiscal representative in Italy who receives all official communications.
The State’s defense argued that by having a fixed representative in Italy, these companies should be treated similarly to domestic Italian entities for procedural deadlines. Therefore, they must adhere to the standard 60-day rule. If they filed their appeal after 60 days (even if within the 150-day window), it should be declared inadmissible.
The lawyers for the companies presented a counter-argument. They explained that the fiscal representative, to have the legal authority to act in court, first needed to obtain specific powers of attorney notarized in China—a process that can take several months. They contended that the underlying organizational difficulty for a foreign entity remains and, consequently, the extended 150-day deadline should apply. Their interpretation is that the rule protects the party based outside Italy, not merely the physical location where documents are served.
The Substantive Issue: Proportionality of Anti-Evasion Measures
If the TAR finds the appeal admissible, it will then rule on the merits of the case. Here, the key legal principle is proportionality. The appellant companies argue that the decree’s harsh measures are illegitimate because they are applied automatically and indiscriminately.
Their position is clear: “We primarily sell through major e-commerce platforms like Amazon, which already withhold and remit VAT on our behalf. Under this business model, the risk of tax evasion is virtually non-existent.” Applying the same guarantee requirement to them as to high-risk operators, they claim, violates the principle of proportionality, a cornerstone of both Italian and EU law.
What This Means Now for Non-EU Companies
It is critical to emphasize that the hearing did not change the current regulations. While awaiting the TAR’s final decision, the MEF Decree of December 4, 2024, remains fully in force. For any non-EU company seeking to register for VIES or maintain an existing registration, the requirement to provide a financial guarantee is still a concrete obligation. Failure to provide it can result in the Italian Revenue Agency denying registration or revoking an existing VIES number.
When to Expect the TAR Lazio’s Ruling
The timeline for the court’s written decision can vary. For complex cases like this one, which involve significant interpretative legal questions, the TAR Lazio may take approximately 3 to 6 months or more to deliberate and publish its fully reasoned ruling. A decision is therefore realistically expected sometime between spring and summer of 2026.
The ruling will need to address three critical points:
- The interpretation of appeal deadlines for entities with an Italian fiscal representative.
- The procedural status of non-EU companies in Italian administrative law.
- The legitimacy and proportionality of restrictive measures for VIES access.
Conclusion
The TAR Lazio hearing of January 28, 2026, is far more than a legal technicality. It represents a defining moment that will clarify the balance between necessary fiscal controls and the operational freedom of international trade within the EU single market. The upcoming ruling will have a direct impact on the ability of thousands of non-EU businesses to operate competitively in Italy and Europe. For now, the strict rules apply, but the business community awaits the court’s next move with keen interest.
