## Facts

- New Valmar BVBA, a Belgian company in the Dutch-speaking region, traded children’s articles under a cross-border concession arrangement with Global Pharmacies Partner Health Srl (GPPH), an Italian company.
- Flemish language rules required certain business documents, including invoices, to be drafted exclusively in Dutch; noncompliance was sanctioned by absolute nullity.
- New Valmar issued invoices to GPPH in Italian for goods supplied under the cross-border relationship.
- GPPH did not pay; New Valmar sued in the Ghent Commercial Court for approximately EUR 234,192.
- GPPH argued the invoices were void because they were not in Dutch.
- The Ghent Commercial Court referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union on whether the language requirement and nullity sanction were compatible with EU law on free movement of goods.

## Issues

1. Whether a rule requiring invoices for cross-border transactions to be drawn up exclusively in a regional official language, on pain of absolute nullity, is a measure having equivalent effect to a quantitative restriction on exports under Article 35 TFEU.
2. If so, whether the rule can be justified by legitimate aims (official language policy, fiscal control, administration of justice) and whether automatic nullity is proportionate.

## Decision

- The Court held that the exclusive-language requirement for invoices used in cross-border transactions, combined with absolute nullity for noncompliance, constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to an export restriction contrary to Article 35 TFEU.
- The Court accepted that promoting an official language and facilitating administrative and fiscal control may be legitimate objectives.
- The Court ruled the measure was disproportionate because it imposed an inflexible language requirement and an automatic nullity sanction, despite less restrictive alternatives (e.g., permitting another authentic language between parties and requiring a translation for control purposes).

## Legal Principles

- A national or regional rule that makes cross-border trade less attractive by imposing burdens on essential commercial documentation may breach Article 35 TFEU as a measure equivalent to a quantitative restriction on exports.
- Legitimate public interests, including promotion of an official language and effective fiscal supervision, may justify restrictions only if the measures are suitable and no more restrictive than necessary.
- EU VAT rules permitting Member States to require invoice translations for control purposes do not authorize imposing an exclusive drafting language as a general rule.
- Automatic nullity of invoices solely for language noncompliance, without a possibility to cure and regardless of transaction reality or party comprehension, is generally disproportionate where less restrictive enforcement tools are available.

## Conclusion

The Court concluded that EU free-movement rules preclude regional legislation that forces invoices for cross-border transactions to be drafted only in the region’s official language and renders nonconforming invoices automatically void, because the restriction is not justified by proportionate means.


New Valmar BVBA v. Global Pharmacies Partner Health Srl, Case C-15/15 (C.J.E.U. 2016)