The ECJ made this decision in a so-called “preliminary ruling procedure”. In such proceedings, the ECJ has to decide how provisions of EU law are to be interpreted. In this specific case, the lawsuit concerned a provision of the EU directive on the common VAT system (EU VAT Directive). This EU directive forms the basis for the national implementing legislation on VAT in the various EU member states. Due to its monopoly on the interpretation of EU law, the decisions of the ECJ in such proceedings must be taken into account by all EU member states when implementing the directive and applying their national legislation.
Austria recently reacted to the ECJ judgement and adapted its tax practice accordingly. Until now, an entrepreneur was entitled to adjust the VAT in accordance with § 16 (1) and (3) UStG 1995 in the event of a bad debt loss despite having received an insurance indemnification, as the latter had previously been regarded as “genuine compensation for damages“ and thus irrelevant for VAT purposes. According to the latest VAT maintenance decree 2023 (“UStR-Wartungserlass 2023”), such a VAT adjustment - if and to the extent that the entrepreneur has received an indemnification by an insurer in lieu of the defaulted receivable - is no longer possible:
"The monetary compensation paid to the supplying entrepreneur in the event of a loss is consideration for the insured, taxable transactions. In this respect, the supplier may not make any adjustments [...] from 1 January 2024."
It can be expected that the other EU member states will also adapt their tax practices accordingly, if they have not already done so or were already doing so before the ECJ ruling. In case the tax practices of other EU member states concerning this topic are relevant for your business (in particular, if you have co-insured companies in other EU member states), please contact your tax advisor for more details!