Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:699
Date: 2025-09-11
Language of the case: Lithuanian

Translation C-472/24 – 1 
Case C-472/24 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
2 July 2024 
Referring court: 
Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės 
(Lithuania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
20 June 2024 
Applicant: 
‘Žaidimų valiuta’ MB 
Defendant: 
Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų 
ministerijos 
  
MOKESTINIŲ GINČŲ KOMISIJA PRIE LIETUVOS RESPUBLIKOS 
VYRIAUSYBĖS (Tax Disputes Commission under the Government of the 
Republic of Lithuania) 
DECISION 
ON THE COMPLAINT OF ‘ŽAIDIMŲ VALIUTA’ MB 
No S-… (7-2024/55) of [20] June 2024 
[…] 
The Tax Disputes Commission under the Government of the Republic of 
Lithuania (‘the Tax Disputes Commission’), […] [composition of the Tax 
Disputes Commission] has examined the complaint of the small partnership 
‘Žaidimų valiuta’ (‘the applicant’) of 17 April 2024 regarding Decision No 69-17 
of the Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų 
ministerijos (State Tax Inspectorate under the Ministry of Finance of the Republic 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 6. 2024 – CASE C-472/24 
 
2  
of Lithuania; ‘the Inspectorate’) of 28 March 2024. […] [representatives of the 
parties] 
The Tax Disputes Commission has found as follows: 
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (ex 
Article 234 EC) provides that, where a question concerning the interpretation of 
acts which are adopted by the institutions of the European Union and fall within 
the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) is raised 
before any court or tribunal of a Member State, that court or tribunal may, if it 
considers that a decision on the question is necessary to enable it to give 
judgment, request the CJEU to give a ruling thereon. In its judgment of 
21 October 2010 in Case C-385/09 (Nidera Handelscompagnie BV v Inspectorate, 
ECLI:EU:C:2010:627; paragraph 40), the CJEU concluded that the Tax Disputes 
Commission is a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 234 EC (and 
therefore also within the meaning of Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union). 
Legal context 
European Union law 
1 Under the third [paragraph] of Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union, a directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon 
each Member State to which it is addressed, but is to leave to the national 
authorities the choice of form and methods. 
2 According to Article 2(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 
2006 on the common system of value added tax (‘the VAT Directive’): 
‘1. The following transactions shall be subject to VAT: 
(a) the supply of goods for consideration within the territory of a Member State 
by a taxable person acting as such; 
… 
(c) the supply of services for consideration within the territory of a Member 
State by a taxable person acting as such; 
…’ 
3 Under Article 135(1) of the VAT Directive: 
‘1. Member States shall exempt the following transactions: 
… 
ŽAIDIMŲ VALIUTA 
 
3 
(e) transactions, including negotiation, concerning currency, bank notes and 
coins used as legal tender, with the exception of collectors’ items, that is to say, 
gold, silver or other metal coins or bank notes that are not normally used as legal 
tender or coins of numismatic interest; 
…’ 
4 Article 30a [of the VAT Directive, inserted by Article 1] of Council Directive 
(EU) 2016/1065 of 27 June 2016 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the 
treatment of vouchers, states: 
‘For the purposes of this Directive the following definitions shall apply: 
(1) “voucher” means an instrument where there is an obligation to accept it as 
consideration or part consideration for a supply of goods or services and where the 
goods or services to be supplied or the identities of their potential suppliers are 
either indicated on the instrument itself or in related documentation, including the 
terms and conditions of use of such instrument; 
(2) “single-purpose voucher” means a voucher where the place of supply of the 
goods or services to which the voucher relates, and the VAT due on those goods 
or services, are known at the time of issue of the voucher; 
(3) “multi-purpose voucher” means a voucher, other than a single-purpose 
voucher.’ 
5 Article 30b(2) [of the VAT Directive, inserted by Article 1] of […] Directive […] 
2016/1065 […], states: 
‘… 
2. The actual handing over of the goods or the actual provision of the services 
in return for a multi-purpose voucher accepted as consideration or part 
consideration by the supplier shall be subject to VAT pursuant to Article 2, 
whereas each preceding transfer of that multi-purpose voucher shall not be subject 
to VAT. 
Where a transfer of a multi-purpose voucher is made by a taxable person other 
than the taxable person carrying out the transaction subject to VAT pursuant to the 
first subparagraph, any supply of services that can be identified, such as 
distribution or promotion services, shall be subject to VAT.’ 
National law 
6 Article 28 of the Lietuvos Respublikos pridėtinės vertės mokesčio įstatymas (Law 
of the Republic of Lithuania on Value Added Tax; ‘the Law on VAT’), entitled 
‘Financial services’, provides, in paragraph 4 thereof, that currency transactions 
(including currency exchange), also accepting contributions in cash and disbursing 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 6. 2024 – CASE C-472/24 
 
4  
payments, cash management and other services directly connected with bank 
notes and coins of any currency are to be exempt from VAT. 
7 Article 71(2) of the Law on VAT provides: 
‘2. Notwithstanding paragraph 1 of this Article, a taxable person of the 
Republic of Lithuania shall not be liable … to calculate VAT and pay it into the 
budget, in the manner laid down in this Law, where the total annual amount of 
consideration within the last 12 months for goods supplied and/or services 
provided in the territory of the country while carrying out economic activities has 
not exceeded EUR 45 000. VAT shall be begun to be calculated from the month 
when that limit has been exceeded. No VAT shall be calculated in respect of the 
goods supplied and services provided the consideration for which did not exceed 
the specified amount of EUR 45 000. …’ 
8 Article 2(22) of the Law on VAT states that goods include any thing (including 
notes and coins of numismatic interest), also electricity, gas, heat, cooling and 
other types of energy. A computer storage medium shall not be regarded as a good 
if its content consists of non-standard software, that is to say, software that has not 
been developed for mass consumption and that consumers would not be able to 
use independently after installation and the limited training required to perform 
standard operations or functions. 
9 Article 15(1) of the Law on VAT provides: 
‘1. The taxable amount which is the base for the calculation of VAT shall 
comprise the consideration (excluding the VAT itself) which has been or is to be 
obtained by the supplier of goods or provider of services (hereinafter in this 
Article – the seller) or, on his or her behalf, a third party. Where other goods 
and/or services are obtained in payment for the goods supplied or services 
provided, the consideration that would have been obtained if obtained in cash 
shall constitute the taxable amount which is the base for calculation of VAT.’ 
10 Article 2(131) of the Law on VAT states that a voucher means an instrument 
which establishes an obligation to accept it as consideration or part consideration 
for a supply of goods or services, and in which, or in the documents relating to it 
and specifying the terms and conditions for its use, the goods or services to be 
supplied or the identities of their potential suppliers are indicated. 
11 Article 2(71) of the Law on VAT states that a multi-purpose voucher means a 
voucher other than a single-purpose voucher, that is to say, that the place of 
supply of the goods or services to which the voucher relates and/or the VAT due 
on those goods or services are not known at the time of issue of the voucher. 
12 Article 91(3) and (4) of the Law on VAT provides: 
‘… 
ŽAIDIMŲ VALIUTA 
 
5 
3. The transfer of a multi-purpose voucher shall not be subject to VAT. In 
accordance with Article 3 of this Law, the actual handing over of the goods or the 
actual provision of the services in return for a multi-purpose voucher accepted as 
consideration or part consideration by the supplier shall be subject to VAT. 
4. Where a transfer of a multi-purpose voucher is made by a taxable person 
other than the taxable person whose transaction is subject to VAT pursuant to 
paragraph 3 of this Article, any identified services provided by him or her in 
connection with the transfer of the multi-purpose voucher, such as distribution or 
promotion services, shall be subject to VAT.’ 
Facts and arguments of the parties 
13 The dispute in the present case concerns the validity of the VAT treatment of 
transactions relating to the sale of ‘Gold’ from the computer game ‘Runescape’ 
(‘in-game Gold’). During an inspection, the Panevėžio apskrities valstybinė 
mokesčių inspekcija (Panevėžys District State Tax Inspectorate; ‘the Panevėžys 
DSTI’) established that the applicant derives income from purchasing in-game 
Gold from natural persons and reselling it at a higher price. 
14 For the period between 2020 and 2023 in question, the following income from the 
applicant’s sales of in-game Gold has been established: EUR 199 580 in 2021, 
EUR 163 428 in 2022 and EUR 52 476 in 2023. Since the total annual amount of 
consideration received by the applicant within the last 12 months while carrying 
out its economic activity through the sale of in-game Gold exceeded EUR 45 000, 
the applicant became liable to pay VAT to the budget. The applicant failed to 
calculate, declare and pay VAT, and therefore, by decision of the Panevėžys DSTI 
of 9 January 2024 […], the applicant was ordered to pay VAT in the amount of 
EUR 46 688 (EUR 16 270 in 2021, EUR 21 351 in 2022 and EUR 9 067 in 2023), 
while the Inspectorate’s decision approving the decision of the Panevėžys DSTI 
also ordered the applicant to pay EUR 6 999.18 in VAT interest and a VAT fine 
of EUR 18 675, and confirmed a loss of EUR 12 327 for the tax period 2021 and a 
loss of EUR 21 843 for the tax period 2022. 
15 The applicant disagreed with the decision of the Inspectorate and brought a 
complaint before the Tax Disputes Commission. 
16 The applicant states that it engages in wholesale/retail online trading. Income is 
generated from online transactions by buying and reselling in-game Gold from 
individuals/legal entities. In-game Gold can be used in many different ways. It can 
be used to purchase a variety of services and items in the game ‘Runescape’, to 
pay for player status upgrades or access to in-game events and mini-games, or to 
purchase Gold from other games or items from other games. All these can be 
purchased from both other players and various traders, intermediaries and 
exchanges. The majority of customers are natural persons. The applicant posts on 
various forums, groups and platforms such as Facebook, Discord and Skype, 
where most people play online games. An advertisement is created to announce 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 6. 2024 – CASE C-472/24 
 
6  
that in-game Gold is for sale, indicating prices and contacts. All transactions 
usually last about 4 to 5 minutes and are carried out individually: 
– to purchase in-game Gold, the customer contacts the communication platforms, 
specifies the desired quantity, is informed of prices and payment details, and, 
upon payment, is referred to a specific location in Runescape where the player can 
collect the in-game Gold after logging in to the game; 
– to sell in-game Gold, the customer is also informed of a location in Runescape 
where, after logging in to the game and handing over the in-game Gold, the 
payment is effected according to the payment details provided by the seller. 
17 The applicant treated the income from the sale of in-game Gold as income from 
trading in virtual currency and therefore classified it as income from an exempt 
activity in accordance with the provisions of Article 28(4) of the Law on VAT. 
18 The Panevėžys DSTI stated that the applicant, by trading in in-game Gold, 
provided services and such activity is considered to be an economic activity aimed 
at generating income. It also noted that the trading of in-game Gold, which 
enables players to purchase in-game items and enhance their gameplay within the 
confines of a single computer game, could not be regarded as trading in virtual 
currency, or as the supply of financial services. 
19 In the applicant’s view, if in-game Gold is not a virtual currency, then it is a multi-
purpose voucher which is not subject to VAT. In that case, the consideration 
received by the applicant for the transfer of the multi-purpose vouchers is the 
difference between the purchase price and the selling price of the vouchers and, in 
particular, that difference could be treated as consideration received by the 
applicant that could be subject to VAT. However, the Inspectorate disagrees with 
that assessment, arguing that the applicant has not issued the in-game Gold, that is 
to say, that it has been issued by the developer of the game ‘Runescape’, and 
therefore the applicant’s income derived from the sale of such in-game Gold is 
subject to VAT. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
20 According to the applicant, in the contested decision, the Inspectorate departed 
from the case-law of the CJEU on the VAT treatment of the proceeds from the 
transfer of virtual currencies, which the applicant considers to include in-game 
Gold. The applicant notes that in Case C-264/14 (Skatteverket v David Hedqvist, 
ECLI:EU:C:2015:718) the CJEU dealt with the question of whether transactions 
involving the purchase/sale of ‘bitcoins’ were subject to VAT. The CJEU, 
referring to the European Central Bank’s 2012 report on virtual currency 
schemes 1 (‘the ECB Report’), ruled that ‘bitcoin’ was a virtual currency with 
 
1 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf 
ŽAIDIMŲ VALIUTA 
 
7 
bidirectional flow and clarified that transactions involving the purchase and sale 
of virtual currencies were not subject to VAT in the case where the trader’s 
earnings consisted of the difference between the purchase and selling prices of the 
virtual currencies and the trader did not receive a separate commission for the 
transactions. In Case C-264/14, the CJEU ruled that Article 135(1)(e) of the VAT 
Directive must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of services such as those 
at issue in the main proceedings, which consist of the exchange of traditional 
currencies for units of the ‘bitcoin’ virtual currency and vice versa, performed in 
return for payment of a sum equal to the difference between, on the one hand, the 
price paid by the operator to purchase the currency and, on the other hand, the 
price at which he sells that currency to his clients, are transactions exempt from 
VAT, within the meaning of that provision. 
21 The applicant states that, as in CJEU Case C-264/14, its profits are derived from 
the difference between the purchase price and selling price of in-game Gold. The 
applicant does not receive any separate commission for the transactions it carries 
out, and in-game Gold corresponds to one of the types of virtual currency referred 
to in the 2012 ECB Report, 2 which was also relied on by the CJEU in that case. In 
its report, the ECB explained that closed virtual currency schemes are those that 
have almost no link to the real economy and are sometimes called ‘in-game only’ 
schemes. Users usually pay a subscription fee and then earn virtual money based 
on their online performance. The virtual currency can only be spent by purchasing 
virtual goods and services offered within the virtual community and, at least in 
theory, it cannot be traded outside the virtual community. 3 In the applicant’s 
view, in-game Gold fully meets that definition of a closed virtual currency 
scheme. Gold from the game ‘Runescape’ can be earned by players by completing 
various tasks in the game, can be used to purchase virtual in-game items and 
services within the game itself, and cannot be used for payment in the real 
economy outside the game. The same classification system for virtual currencies 
was replicated in the 2015 ECB Virtual Currency Schemes report. 4 Accordingly, 
the applicant claims that the sale of in-game Gold should be exempted under 
Article 28(4) of the Law on VAT as a virtual currency. 
22 The Inspectorate, disagreeing with the applicant’s position that in-game Gold 
should be recognised as a virtual currency, noted that the sale of in-game means to 
allow players to purchase in-game items and enhance their gameplay within the 
confines of a single computer game, cannot be regarded as trading in virtual 
currency or as the provision of financial services. It also noted that publicly 
available data on the online cryptocurrency trading market, as published on 
 
2 The ECB explained that a virtual currency is a type of unregulated, digital money, which is 
issued and usually controlled by its developers, and used and accepted among the members of a 
specific virtual community. 
3 ECB Report, Chapter 2.1, fourth paragraph. 
4 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemesen.pdf 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 6. 2024 – CASE C-472/24 
 
8  
www.kitco.com, showed that there was no public trading of Gold from the game 
‘Runescape’. 
23 As pointed out by the Inspectorate, the concept of virtual currency is defined in 
point [18] of Article [3] of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council [of 20 May 2015] on the prevention of the use of the financial 
system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing[, amending 
Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and 
repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC], according to which ‘“virtual currencies” 
means a digital representation of value that is not issued or guaranteed by a central 
bank or a public authority, is not necessarily attached to a legally established 
currency and does not possess a legal status of currency or money, but is accepted 
by natural or legal persons as a means of exchange and which can be transferred, 
stored and traded electronically’. 
24 The Inspectorate notes that the above definitions of virtual currency and CJEU 
Case C-264/14 emphasise the necessary and sufficient recognition by natural and 
legal persons of virtual currency as a legitimate alternative to other means of 
payment/exchange. The Inspectorate concluded that Gold from the game 
‘Runescape’ was only a means of payment used in the game and cited the 
judgment of the [Rechtbank Noord-Holland (District Court, North Holland, 
Netherlands)] of 22 March 2021 in Case No AWB – 20,384 5 concerning the 
VAT treatment of the same transactions for the sale/purchase of Gold from the 
‘Runescape’ game: ‘In the opinion of this Court, gold coins from the ‘Runescape’ 
game are not intended to be used as a means of payment, but rather are used in the 
game. Gold coins can also be sold by players of the game, but the applicant has 
not persuaded this Court that gold coins are sufficiently accepted as a means of 
payment outside that gaming environment. … gold coins can only be transferred 
from one account to another within the game. The applicant has therefore failed to 
convince this Court that there is a virtual currency that is used in the real world in 
the same way as other convertible currencies exclusively as a means of payment 
for the purchase of both real and virtual goods and services. In the view of this 
Court, the fact that gold coins are of collectible value and can be traded does not 
mean that they serve as a means of payment. … gold coins, unlike “bitcoins”, do 
not serve the same function as traditional currencies.’ 
25 The Tax Disputes Commission observes that the issue of the tax treatment of the 
income from the sale of in-game means as income from the sale of virtual 
currency has not been dealt with at national level or in the case-law of the CJEU, 
and therefore the question arises as to whether the transaction of the sale of Gold 
from the game ‘Runescape’ falls within the scope of the transactions exempt from 
VAT set out in Article 135(1)(e) of the VAT Directive. 
 
5 https://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2021:2091 
ŽAIDIMŲ VALIUTA 
 
9 
26 In the applicant’s view, if in-game Gold were not to be regarded as virtual 
currency, then it is a multi-purpose voucher and therefore not subject to VAT. The 
applicant relies on Article 91(3) of the Law on VAT and the provisions of 
Article 30a of the VAT Directive, according to which a multi-purpose voucher is a 
voucher where the place of supply of the goods or services to which the voucher 
relates, and the VAT due on those goods or services, are not known at the time of 
issue of the voucher. 
27 The Inspectorate, disagreeing with the applicant’s position, points out that the 
VAT on multi-purpose vouchers, as defined in Article 2(71) and (131) of the Law 
on VAT, is calculated at the time of the actual (physical) transfer of the goods or 
the supply of the services relating to the voucher. The Inspectorate notes that, in 
order to ensure that the amount of VAT relating to multi-purpose vouchers is 
calculated and paid to the budget, the VAT should be calculated by the actual 
supplier of those goods or services on the basis of the consideration paid for the 
multi-purpose voucher. In the absence of such information, the taxable amount 
should be equal to the monetary value indicated on the multi-purpose voucher or 
in the related documentation, less the amount of VAT relating to the supply of 
goods or services. Any intermediation or other related services provided in 
connection with the issue of multi-purpose vouchers would also be subject to 
VAT. The Inspectorate, taking into account the fact that the applicant had not 
issued the in-game Gold, found that the transfer of in-game Gold for consideration 
was subject to VAT. 
28 The Tax Disputes Commission observes that before creating an account in 
Runescape, the player must accept the game rules, according to which ownership 
of both the player’s account and the products related to the game (including in-
game Gold) does not pass to the player, 6 but in-game Gold confers certain rights 
in the game and obliges the game operator to provide certain services and money 
to the holder of in-game Gold in return for accepting in-game Gold as a reward for 
the rights and services provided. In the Tax Disputes Commission’s view, the in-
game Gold distributed by a Runescape player (that is to say, also by the applicant) 
rather than by the game operator cannot be regarded as vouchers, still less as a 
multi-purpose voucher within the meaning of Articles 30a and 30b of the VAT 
Directive. However, the Tax Disputes Commission is uncertain whether, in 
general, the means of the game operator used in computer games, which give 
players rights to in-game items, services or other in-game benefits when 
purchased, could be regarded as vouchers within the meaning of Articles 30a and 
30b of the VAT Directive. 
29 According to the Inspectorate, since the applicant buys and sells an electronic 
product (in-game Gold), which does not correspond to the definition of a good as 
defined in Article 2(22) of the Law on VAT, the applicant supplies electronic 
 
6 http://www.jagex.com/en-GB/terms/rules-of-runescape 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 20. 6. 2024 – CASE C-472/24 
 
10  
services and the total remuneration calculated for such services is subject to VAT, 
as laid down in Article 15 of the Law on VAT. 
30 The applicant disagrees with the Inspectorate’s position that the entire value of the 
transaction for the transfer of in-game Gold should be treated as a taxable value 
for VAT purposes. In the applicant’s view, given that it does not charge a separate 
commission for the sale of in-game Gold, the taxable value for VAT purposes 
should consist of the difference between the purchase price and the selling price of 
the in-game Gold and not of the total price of the in-game Gold sold. The 
applicant submits that the Inspectorate’s position contradicts the CJEU case-law, 
which has clarified that where a trader buys standard currencies or virtual 
currencies, or similar means, and sells them at a higher price and does not charge 
a commission, the trader’s consideration is the difference between the purchase 
price and the selling price. The applicant cites the judgment of the CJEU in Case 
C-172/96 (First National Bank of Chicago, ECLI:EU:C:1998:354), in which the 
Court held that in foreign exchange transactions in which no fees or commission 
are calculated with regard to certain specific transactions, the taxable amount is 
the net result of the transactions of the supplier of the services over a given period 
of time, and Case C-264/14, in which the CJEU also stated that ‘transactions such 
as those at issue in the main proceedings, which consist of the exchange of 
traditional currency for units of the “bitcoin” virtual currency and vice versa, in 
return for payment of a sum equal to the difference between, on the one hand, the 
price paid by the operator to purchase the currency and, on the other hand, the 
price at which he sells that currency to his clients ….’ 
31 In the Tax Disputes Commission’s view, the divergent positions of the 
Inspectorate and the applicant with regard to the taxable value for VAT purposes 
of the proceeds from the sale of in-game Gold are due to a lack of interpretation of 
EU law and of CJEU case-law. Since the dispute concerns VAT, which is being 
harmonised at the EU level, the Tax Disputes Commission requests clarification. 
32 With regard to a request for a preliminary ruling, the CJEU may, if necessary, 
provide national courts with guidance to assist them in their assessment of the 
specific case before them concerning the application of the VAT Directive to the 
taxation of sales of in-game Gold, thus ensuring uniform conditions of taxation in 
the European Union. 
33 Answers to these questions are essential and necessary in order to resolve the tax 
dispute between the applicant and the Inspectorate that is being dealt with by the 
Tax Disputes Commission, since it is the interpretation of the legal provisions 
concerned that determines whether the taxation of the applicant is well founded 
and the Inspectorate is entitled to calculate the VAT amount payable by the 
applicant. 
34 The Tax Disputes Commission also considers that a request to the Court of Justice 
at the pre-litigation stage of the tax dispute is appropriate for the purpose of 
expeditious examination of tax disputes. 
ŽAIDIMŲ VALIUTA 
 
11 
Pursuant to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
[…], [reference to the provisions of the Lithuanian procedural law] the Tax 
Disputes Commission decides: 
1. The following questions are referred to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union for a preliminary ruling: 
1.1. Does the sale of ‘Gold’ from the game ‘Runescape’ fall within the scope of 
the exempt transactions set out in Article 135(1)(e) of Council Directive 
2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax 
(‘the VAT Directive’)? 
1.2. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, what should be the 
taxable value of in-game Gold according to the provisions of the VAT Directive: 
the total consideration for the sale of in-game Gold or only the difference between 
the purchase price and the selling price, where the trader does not charge a 
separate commission for the transfer of in-game Gold? 
[…] [standard procedural wording] 
[…] 
[…] [standard procedural wording and composition of the court] 
[…] 
[information unrelated to the questions referred]