Zaidimu valiuta (VAT - Exemptions - Transactions involving the exchange of units of virtual money of an online video game for traditional currencies - Judgment)

March 2026 ( * )

This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 135(1)(e) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2016/1065 of 27 June 2016 (OJ 2016 L 177, p. 9) ('the VAT Directive').

The request has been made in proceedings between MB “Žaidimų valiuta”, a company incorporated under Lithuanian law, and the Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos (State Tax Directorate under the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania), concerning the application of value added tax (VAT) to the sale of virtual money of an online video game.

Article 30a of the VAT Directive provides:

Article 30b(2) of that directive provides:

Article 73 of that directive states:

Article 73a of that directive provides:

Article 135(1)(e) of the VAT Directive provides:

Article 2(22) of the Lietuvos Respublikos pridėtinės vertės mokesčio įstatymas (Law of the Republic of Lithuania on VAT) states:

Žaidimų valiuta's primary activity consists of buying and reselling the virtual currency of an online video game called 'Runescape' ('Gold'), in exchange for traditional currencies.

During a tax inspection in respect of the period 2020 to 2023, the Panevėžio apskrities valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija (Regional Tax Inspectorate for the District of Panevėžys, Lithuania) ('the Regional Inspectorate') found that the exchange transactions carried out by Žaidimų valiuta constituted supplies of services subject to VAT. Having neither declared nor paid VAT, Žaidimų valiuta was thus required, by a decision of the State Tax Directorate attached to the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Lithuania, to pay the VAT relating to those transactions, together with interest for late payment, and a fine.

Žaidimų valiuta challenged that decision before the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės (Tax Disputes Commission under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania), which is the referring court. That company submits that 'Gold' should be classified as a virtual currency and that, consequently, transactions involving the exchange of 'Gold' for traditional currencies should be exempt from VAT, in line with the Court's ruling in relation to 'bitcoin' in the judgment of 22 October 2015, Hedqvist (C‑264/14, EU:C:2015:718 ). In the alternative, it submits that 'Gold' should be regarded as multi-purpose vouchers which are also not subject to VAT. In any event, Žaidimų valiuta argues that the Regional Inspectorate is wrong to take the view that the total sale price of the 'Gold' should be included in the taxable amount and not only the difference between the purchase price and the selling price of the 'Gold'.

The regional inspectorate argues that, since 'Gold' can be used only in an online video game, it cannot be classified as a virtual currency and, consequently, the economic activity carried out by Žaidimų valiuta is not a virtual currency trading activity or a financial service. It also submits that 'Gold' cannot be classified as multi-purpose voucher, since it is issued by the game creator and not by Žaidimų valiuta.

The referring court observes that, before creating an account in the 'Runescape' game, players must accept rules according to which neither ownership of their own account nor ownership of the goods connected with the game (including 'Gold') are transferred to them. However, it notes that 'Gold' itself confers certain rights in that game and obliges the game operator to provide certain services. In those circumstances, it asks whether, for tax purposes, income derived from the sale of the virtual money used in an online video game can be treated as income from the sale of traditional currencies. If not, it asks whether, since 'Gold' may be exchanged for various goods and services in such a game, it may be classified as a 'voucher', in particular as a 'multi-purpose voucher', within the meaning of Article 30a(1) and (3) of the VAT Directive.

In those circumstances, the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės (Tax Disputes Commission under the Government of the Republic of Lithuania) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

It is apparent from the information in the order for reference that, in view of the subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings, that court has doubts as to whether the sales of 'Gold' at issue in the main proceedings are subject to VAT. Thus, in its first question, it asks whether those transactions constitute exempt transactions for the purposes of Article 135(1)(e) of the VAT Directive.

The second question is asked in the event that the first question is answered in the negative and concerns the taxable amount of those transactions for VAT purposes, under the provisions of the VAT Directive. Although, in that second question, the referring court does not specify any provision of the VAT Directive which it seeks to have interpreted, it is nevertheless apparent from the information provided in the order for reference that the court is questioning whether 'Gold' constitutes a 'voucher', in particular a 'multi-purpose voucher', within the meaning of Article 30a(1) and (3) of that directive, with the result, if that is the case, that VAT should be levied on the difference between the selling price and the purchase price of that 'Gold'. It also asks whether, on the contrary, those transactions constitute a 'supply of services', such that the entire sale of that 'Gold' is subject to VAT, in accordance with Article 73 of that directive.

In those circumstances, it must be held that, by its two questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 135(1)(e) of the VAT Directive must be interpreted as meaning that transactions consisting in the exchange, for payment purposes, of real currency for units of virtual money that can be used only in an online video game are covered by the VAT exemption laid down in that provision. If not, it asks whether Article 30a(1) and (3) of that directive must be interpreted as meaning that those units of virtual money, where they give access to certain functionalities within that game, constitute a 'voucher', in particular a 'multi-purpose voucher', within the meaning of that provision, with the result that VAT must be levied on the difference between the selling price and the purchase price of that 'Gold'.

As a preliminary point, it should be borne in mind that, in accordance with the Court's case-law, the exemptions laid down in Article 135(1) of the VAT Directive constitute independent concepts of EU law whose purpose is to avoid divergences in the application of the VAT system as between one Member State and another (judgments of 22 October 2015, Hedqvist , C‑264/14, EU:C:2015:718 , paragraph 33 and the case-law cited, and of 9 March 2023, Generali Seguros , C‑42/22, EU:C:2023:183 , paragraph 28).

Moreover, the terms used to specify those exemptions are to be interpreted strictly, since they constitute exceptions to the general principle that VAT is to be levied on all services supplied for consideration by a taxable person (judgments of 22 October 2015, Hedqvist , C‑264/14, EU:C:2015:718 , paragraph 34 and the case-law cited, and of 9 March 2023, Generali Seguros , C‑42/22, EU:C:2023:183 , paragraph 29).

Nevertheless, the interpretation of those terms must be consistent with the objectives pursued by the exemptions laid down in Article 135(1) of the VAT Directive and comply with the requirements of the principle of fiscal neutrality inherent in the common system of VAT. Thus, that requirement of strict interpretation does not mean that the terms used to define those exemptions should be construed in such a way as to deprive the exemptions of their intended effect (judgment of 22 October 2015, Hedqvist , C‑264/14, EU:C:2015:718 , paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).

In that regard, it is clear from the Court's case-law that the purpose of the exemptions laid down in Article 135(1)(d) to (f) of the VAT Directive is, inter alia, to alleviate the difficulties connected with determining the taxable amount and the amount of VAT deductible (judgment of 22 October 2015, Hedqvist , C‑264/14, EU:C:2015:718 , paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).

Moreover, the transactions exempt from VAT under those provisions are, by their nature, financial transactions even though they do not necessarily have to be carried out by banks or financial institutions (judgment of 22 October 2015, Hedqvist , C‑264/14, EU:C:2015:718 , paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).

In that context, it must be borne in mind that the Article 135(1)(e) of the VAT Directive provides that Member States are to exempt transactions involving, inter alia, 'currency, bank notes and coins used as legal tender'.

In that regard, the Court has already held that 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 (see judgment of 22 October 2015, Hedqvist , C‑264/14, EU:C:2015:718 , paragraph 49).

Although it is for the referring court alone to rule on the classification of the transactions at issue in the main proceedings, in accordance with the particular circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, the fact remains that the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to elicit from the provisions of the VAT directive, in this case Article 135(1)(e), the criteria that the referring court may or must apply to that end (see, by analogy, judgment of 18 April 2024, Finanzamt O (Single-purpose vouchers) , C‑68/23, EU:C:2024:342 , paragraph 45).

It thus follows from the case-law cited in paragraph 24 above that the exemption referred to in Article 135(1)(e) of the VAT Directive may cover transactions in non-traditional currencies, where two cumulative conditions are satisfied, namely, first, that those currencies have been accepted by the parties to a transaction as an alternative to legal tender and, secondly, that those currencies have no purpose other than to be a means of payment.

In the first place, in order to determine whether the transactions at issue in the main proceedings constitute financial transactions exempt from VAT under Article 135(1)(e) of the VAT Directive, it is therefore necessary to examine whether the 'Gold' of the online video game at issue in the main proceedings meets those two conditions.

It is apparent from the information provided by the referring court that 'Gold' has no purpose other than to be used within an online video game and that it does not therefore constitute a currency accepted outside that game as a means of payment in order to obtain real goods or services. In addition, that finding appears to be supported by the fact that the conditions of use of that game provide, in essence, that the products linked to that game, including 'Gold', do not belong to the players. In those circumstances, subject to verification by the referring court, 'Gold' therefore does not satisfy the conditions referred to in paragraph 26 above.

Consequently, transactions for the purchase and sale of 'Gold' cannot be exempted under Article 135(1)(e) of the VAT Directive.

In the light of the referring court's questions referred to in paragraph 16 above as to the taxable amount of those transactions, it is necessary to determine, in the second place, whether 'Gold' may constitute a multi-purpose voucher, within the meaning of Article 30a(3) of that directive.

In that regard, it should be noted that Article 30a(1) of the VAT Directive imposes two cumulative conditions for an instrument to be classified as a voucher. First, the voucher must be an instrument in respect of which there is an obligation to accept it as consideration or part consideration for a supply of goods or services. Secondly, the goods or services to be supplied or the identities of their potential suppliers must be either indicated on the instrument itself or in related documentation, including the terms and conditions of use of that instrument.

In the present case, even if the second of those conditions were satisfied, it does not appear that 'Gold' satisfies the first condition. As the Advocate General observed in point 44 of her Opinion, since it constitutes one of the elements of an online game, 'Gold' is in itself akin to an electronic service forming an integral part of that game. In that regard, it appears that 'Gold', which is the subject of the transactions carried out by Žaidimų valiuta as described in paragraph 9 above, thus constitutes the consumable benefit in the present case, that is to say the service received by the beneficiary and used as such by the latter in the online video game. Accordingly, 'Gold' does not serve, like a voucher, to procure a subsequent consumable benefit in the form of another as yet unspecified service.

Accordingly, 'Gold' cannot be regarded as a voucher, within the meaning of Article 30a(1) of the VAT Directive. Consequently, it cannot be classified as a multi-purpose voucher within the meaning of Article 30a(3) of that directive.

It follows that, since 'Gold' must be classified as an electronic service, the taxable amount of transactions consisting of the exchange, for payment purposes, of currencies for that 'Gold' must be the full consideration received for its sale, in accordance with the general rule laid down in Article 73 of that directive.

In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that:

Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.

Article 135(1)(e) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2016/1065 of 27 June 2016,

Article 30a of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Council Directive 2016/1065,