Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2015:718
Date: 2015-10-22
Language of the case: Swedish
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Taxation;Value added tax
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Sweden

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 22 October 2015 1. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Supply of services effected for consideration — Definition — Transactions to exchange the ‘bitcoin’ virtual currency for traditional currencies — Included (Council Directive 2006/112, Arts 2(1)(c), 14 and 24) 2. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions — Banking transactions or relating to securities — Transactions to exchange the ‘bitcoin’ virtual currency for traditional currencies — Not included (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 135(1)(d) and (f)) 3. Harmonisation of fiscal legislation — Common system of value added tax — Exemptions — Currency transactions — Transactions to exchange the ‘bitcoin’ virtual currency for traditional currencies — Included (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 135(1)(e)) 4. EU law — Interpretation — Texts in several languages — Differences between the various language versions — Account to be taken of the general scheme and purpose of the rules in question (Council Directive 2006/112, Art. 135(1)(e)) 1. Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that transactions that 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, constitute a supply of services for consideration within the meaning of that article. In the first place, the ‘bitcoin’ virtual currency with bidirectional flow cannot be characterised as ‘tangible property’ within the meaning of Article 14 of Directive 2006/114, since that virtual currency has no purpose other than to be a means of payment. Consequently, transactions that consist of the exchange of different means of payment do not fall within the concept of ‘supply of goods’ laid down in Article 14 of the directive. In those circumstances, those transactions constitute a supply of services, within the meaning of Article 24 of the Directive 2006/114. In the second place, as regards the supply of services for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1)(c) of that directive, it must be held that a supply of services is effected ‘for consideration’ only if there is a direct link between the services supplied and the consideration received in the context of which there is a synallagmatic legal relationship by which the parties to the transaction would agree, reciprocally, to transfer amounts of a certain currency and receive the corresponding value in a virtual currency with bidirectional flow, or vice versa. In that regard, it is irrelevant, for the purposes of determining whether a supply of services is effected for consideration, that the remuneration does not take the form of a payment of a commission or specific fees. (see paras 24, 26-31, operative part 1) 2. Article 135(1)(d) and (f) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of services consisting 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 concerned to purchase the currency and, on the other hand, the price at which he sells that currency to his clients, are transactions exempt from those provisions. As regards, in the first place, the exemptions laid down in Article 135(1)(d) of that directive, the ‘bitcoin’ virtual currency, being a contractual means of payment, cannot be regarded as a current account or a deposit account, a payment or a transfer. Moreover, unlike a debt, cheques and other negotiable instruments referred to in Article 135(1)(d) of Directive 2006/112, the ‘bitcoin’ virtual currency is a direct means of payment between the operators that accept it. As regards, next, the exemptions laid down in Article 135(1)(f) of Directive 2006/112, the ‘bitcoin’ virtual currency is neither a security conferring a property right nor a security of a comparable nature. (see paras 38, 42, 54, 55, 57, operative part 2) 3. Article 135(1)(e) of Directive 2006/112 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the supply of services consisting 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 concerned to purchase the currency and, on the other hand, the price at which he sells that currency to his clients, are exempt transactions, within the meaning of that provision. The concepts used in Article 135(1)(e) of Directive 2006/112, which provide that Member States are to exempt transactions involving, inter alia, currency and bank notes and coins used as legal tender, must be interpreted and applied uniformly in the light of the versions in all the languages of the European Union. The exemptions laid down in that provision are intended to alleviate the difficulties connected with determining the taxable amount and the amount of VAT deductible which arise in the context of the taxation of financial transactions. Transactions involving non-traditional currencies, that is to say, currencies other than those that are legal tender in one or more countries, in so far as those currencies have been accepted by the parties to a transaction as an alternative to legal tender and have no purpose other than to be a means of payment, are financial transactions. Furthermore, in the case of exchange transactions in particular, the difficulties connected with determining the taxable amount and the amount of VAT deductible may be the same, whether it is a case of the exchange of traditional currencies, normally exempt under Article 135(1)(e) of Directive 2006/112, or the exchange of such currencies for virtual currencies with bidirectional flow, which — without being legal tender — are a means of payment accepted by the parties to a transaction, and vice versa. In that regard, to interpret Article 135(1)(e) as including only transactions involving traditional currencies would deprive it of part of its effect. (see paras 44, 45, 48-51, 53, 57, operative part 2) 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 47)