1. Art. 2 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c of Council Directive 2006/112 / EC of 28. November 2006 on the common system of VAT is to be interpreted, standing that transactions such as those at issue in the main proceedings, consisting Exchange conventional currencies in units of virtual currency "Bitcoin" and vice versa, which are executed for an amount, corresponding to the margin, represented by the difference between the price, to which the economic operator concerned buys currencies, and the price, at which he sells them to its customers, is formed, constitute paid services provided for the purposes of that provision.

2. Art. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. e of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted, standing that services such as those at issue in this case, consisting Exchange conventional currencies in units of virtual currency "Bitcoin" and vice versa, which are executed for an amount, corresponding to the margin, represented by the difference between the price, to which the economic operator concerned buys currencies, and the price, at which he sells them to its customers, is formed, representing VAT-exempt transactions for the purposes of that provision.

Art. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. d and f of the Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted, that such services do not fall within the scope of those provisions.

ECJ from 22. October 2015(*)

"Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common system of VAT - Directive 2006/112 / EC - Article. 2 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c and Art. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. d to f - Services paid - exchange of virtual currency Bitcoin 'in conventional currencies - Liberation "

In Case C-264/14

REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article. 267 AEUV, eingereicht vom Supreme Administrative Court (Supreme Administrative Court, Sweden) by decision of 27. More 2014, referred to the Court 2. June 2014, in the process

Tax Agency

against

David Hedqvist

adopt

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

with the participation of the President of the Fourth Chamber T. von Danwitz, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, D. Cockroaches, A. Rosas (Reporter), E. Juhász and C. Vajda,

Generalanwältin: J. Kokott,

Chancellor: C. Strömholm, Administrator,

regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 17. June 2015,

after considering the observations

- The Skatteverk, represented by M. Loeb, Legal Secretary,

- Mr Hedqvist, represented by A. Erasmie, lawyer, and F. Berndt, around. kand.,

- The Swedish Government, represented by A. Falk and E. Karlsson, acting as Agents,

- The German Government, represented by T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents,

- The Estonian Government, represented by K. Kraavi-Käerdi as Agents,

- The European Commission, represented by L. Lozano Palacios, M. Oat-Hornung, K. Simonsson und J. Enegren, acting as Agents,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 16. July 2015

following

Judgment

1 The preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article. 2 Abs. 1 and Art. 135 Abs. 1 of Council Directive 2006/112 / EC of 28. November 2006 on the common system of VAT (ABl. The 347, S. 1, below: VAT Directive).

2 It was made in the course of proceedings between the Skatteverket (Swedish Tax Administration) and Mr Hedqvist from a tax law committee (Tax Law Board) issued preliminary decision on the VAT liability of the conversion of conventional currencies in the virtual currency "Bitcoin" or vice versa, want the Lord Hedqvist carry on a business.

Legal framework

Unionsrecht

3 In Art. 2 the VAT Directive provides that:

„(1) The following transactions are subject to VAT:

a) Supply of goods, actuated by a taxable person as such in the territory of a Member State by:;

…

c) Services, provides a taxable as such in the territory of a Member State by:;

…“

4 Art. 14 Abs. 1 the VAT Directive provides for:

"When, a supply of goods' shall mean the transfer of competence, to dispose as owner of a physical object. "

5 Art. 24 Abs. 1 the VAT Directive provides:

"When, service 'means any sales, the supply of goods is not. "

6 Art. 135 determines the VAT Directive:

„(1) Member States shall exempt the following transactions tax:

…

d) Revenues - including negotiation - in deposit and current accounts, Payment in- and transfer of funds, in business with demands, Checks and other negotiable instruments, except for the recovery of debts;

and) Revenues - including negotiation -, concerning currency, Refer banknotes and coins, the legal tender, with the exception of collectors' items, d. h. Coins of gold, Silver or other metal coins or bank notes, which are not normally used as legal tender or coins of numismatic interest;

f) Revenues - including negotiation, but not the management and safekeeping -, relating to shares, Interests in companies or associations, Refer debentures and other securities, with the exception of commodity certificates and in Article 15 Sales 2 said rights and securities;

…“

Swedish law

7 After Chapter 1 § 1 the Law (1994:200) on VAT (Merwärdesskattelag [1994:200], below: Value Added Tax Act) for taxable supplies of goods or. Services, the consideration by a taxable domestically makes or. he brings, To pay VAT to the state.

8 Section 3 this law contains a § 23 Abs. 1, after deliveries of banknotes and coins, representing legal tender, with the exception of collectors' items, d. h. Coins of gold, Silver or other metal coins or bank notes, which are not normally used as legal tender or coins of numismatic interest, are exempt from VAT.

9 In this chapter 3 see § 9 a tax exemption of bank- and financial services, and revenues from securities trading and comparable sales before. The notary activity, Collection services and management services with respect to factoring or the leasing of storage space do not belong to the Bank- and financial services.

The main proceedings and questions referred

10 Mr. Hedqvist intends, offer a business services in the form of the conversion of conventional currencies in the virtual currency "Bitcoin" and vice versa.

11 The order for reference to, that the virtual currency "Bitcoin" mainly intended for payments between individuals on the Internet and in Internet shops, accept this currency, is used. These virtual currency have no individual issuer, but will create a specific algorithm directly on the net. The system of virtual currency "Bitcoin" allow anonymous ownership and anonymous transmission of "Bitcoin" lump sums within the network among users, who possessed "Bitcoin" addresses. A "Bitcoin" address could be the number of a bank account Compare.

12 Referring to a report of the European Central Bank on virtual currencies out of the year 2012 the Court of Appeal from, that a virtual currency as a kind of output from its inventors and controlled digital money could be defined, for there is no control and which will be accepted by the members of a particular virtual community. The virtual currency "Bitcoin" belong to the so-called "both sides tradable" virtual currencies, which could buy the users on the basis of an exchange rate and sell. Such virtual currencies were similar in terms of their use in the real world other Exchange enabled Currencies. They enabled the acquisition of both real and virtual goods and services. Virtual currencies different from e-money as defined in Directive 2009/110 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16. September 2009 relating to the taking, Pursuit and prudential supervision of the business of electronic money institutions, amending Directives 2005/60 / EC and 2006/48 / EC and repealing Directive 2000/46 / EC (ABl. The 267, S. 7), since with virtual currencies as opposed to e-money capital not in conventional units of account, with. B. in Euro, will expressed, but in a virtual unit of account, such as "Bitcoin".

13 The referring court states, that the proposed by Mr Hedqvist sales should be made electronically on the website of his company. This company will buy the units of the virtual currency "Bitcoin" directly at individuals and businesses, or in an international exchange portal. These units would then be resold or incorporated by this company on such Exchange Portal. The company of Mr. Hedqvist such units will also sell to individuals or businesses, who had issued an order through its website. If the customer offered to the Company by Mr Hedqvist, specified in Swedish kronor price have accepted and a payment had been made, the units sold of virtual currency "Bitcoin" would automatically be sent to the specified "Bitcoin" address. In the units sold by this company's virtual currency "Bitcoin" if it were either those, which bought it in the Exchange Portal immediately after the order by the customer, or those, which have already had in stock. The service offered by the company to customers based on the price applicable in a concrete Exchange Portal price plus a certain percentage. The difference between the On- and the selling price point the company's revenue by Mr Hedqvist represents. Other fees stelle this company not invoiced.

14 The planned by Mr Hedqvist revenues therefore limited to the On- and sale of units of the virtual currency "Bitcoin" in exchange for conventional currencies as Swedish kronor, or vice versa. The order for reference does not appear from, that they would relate to payments in "Bitcoins".

15 Before carrying out such transactions Mr. Hedqvist applied to the Tax Law Committee a preliminary, to bring in experience, whether for An- and sale of units of the virtual currency "Bitcoin" is liable for VAT.

16 In a preliminary decision 14. October 2013 went this Committee on the basis of the judgment in First National Bank of Chicago (C‑172/96, I:C:1998:354) the Court assumes, Mr Hedqvist will offer an exchange service for remuneration. However, he took the position, that this exchange of services under the Chapter 3 § 9 of the Law on VAT exemption provided case.

17 According to the Tax Law Committee is the virtual currency "Bitcoin" a cash, the as legal tender will be used. Incidentally, the term serves "legal tender" in Art. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. e of the VAT Directive to, to delimit the scope of the exemption with respect to banknotes and coins. It follows, that this term must be understood as, that it refers only to banknotes and coins and not on currencies. That interpretation is also consistent with the in kind. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. b to g of the VAT Directive exemptions provided the objective pursued, namely the avoidance of the difficulties encountered in the collection of VAT on financial services.

18 The Skatteverket has förvaltningsdomstolen against the decision of the Tax Law Commission Högsta (Supreme Administrative Court) Brought an action, with the power it asserted, that the designated at the request of Mr Hedqvist service not covered by Chapter 3 § 9 of the Law on VAT exemption provided case.

19 Mr. Hedqvist submits, that the action brought by the Skatteverket dismissed and the preliminary decision of the Tax Law Committee is to confirm.

20 The referring court considers, from the judgment in First National Bank of Chicago (C‑172/96, I:C:1998:354) could be deduced, that revenues, which existed in the exchange of a virtual currency in a conventional currency and vice versa, and would be made for an amount, the corresponds to the difference between the price paid by the trader buying-in price and the selling price required of him, constitute a provision of services for remuneration. If adopted such to pose the question, if these transactions under a kind of in. 135 Abs. 1 fell the VAT Directive for Financial Services exemptions provided, in particular under the in subparagraphs. d set up f this provision.

21 Since he has doubts, if one of these exemptions is applicable to such transactions, hatred der Supreme Administrative Court (Supreme Administrative Court) decided, stay the proceedings and refer the following questions for a preliminary ruling to the Court:

1. Ist Art. 2 Abs. 1 interpret the VAT Directive as meaning, that as a virtual currency exchange in a conventional currency and vice versa Transactions referred, for a fee is payable, reckons that the provider of this service in the fixing of exchange rates, should be seen as providing a service for remuneration?

2. If the first question is in the affirmative: Ist Art. 135 Abs. 1 interpret the VAT Directive as meaning, that such exchange transactions are exempt from tax?

The questions

The first question

22 By its first question, the national court asks, ob Art. 2 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c is interpreted as the VAT Directive must, standing that transactions such as those at issue in the main proceedings, consisting Exchange conventional currencies in units of virtual currency "Bitcoin" and vice versa, which are executed for an amount, corresponding to the margin, represented by the difference between the price, to which the economic operator concerned buys currencies, and the price, at which he sells them to its customers, is formed, constitute paid services provided for the purposes of that provision.

23 Not Art. 2 Abs. 1 the VAT Directive provides that the supply of goods and services, by a taxable person as such in the territory of a Member State in return for payment or makes. he brings, VAT.

24 First, it should be noted, that the virtual, both sides tradable currency "Bitcoin", which will be replaced as part of the exchange transactions against conventional currencies, not as "object" within the meaning of Art. 14 the VAT Directive can be classified, since the purpose of these virtual currency, as the Advocate General in point. 17 has her Opinion, consists solely in the use as means of payment.

25 The same is true for conventional currencies, as it comes to money, The legal tender is (vgl. to that effect, National Bank of Chicago First, C‑172/96, I:C:1998:354, Rn. 25).

26 It follows that the provisions at issue in the main proceedings sales, made the different in exchange cash, not covered by the term 'supply of goods', referred to in the Art. 14 the policy is used. Under these circumstances, these sales services within the meaning of Art. 24 the VAT Directive constitutes.

27 Next, it is for pecuniary interest character of a service should be noted, that a supply of services is effected 'for consideration' within the meaning of Article. 2 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c of the VAT Directive shall be provided and therefore subject to VAT, a direct link between the service provided and the consideration received by the taxable equivalent amount is (Judgments Loyalty Management UK and Baxi Group, C-53/09 and C-55/09, I:C:2010:590, Rn. 51 and the case-law cited, sowie Serebryannay vek, C‑283/12, I:C:2013:599, Rn. 37). Such a direct connection exists, if there is a legal relationship between the supplier and the recipient, under which reciprocal performance, wherein the received from the compensation payable is the actual value for the service supplied to the recipient rendered (Judgment Le Rayon d'Or, C‑151/13, I:C:2014:185, Rn. 29 and the case-law cited).

28 In the main proceedings arises from the documents before the Court, that between the company by Mr Hedqvist and its contractors a synallagmatic legal relationship to exist, under which undertake mutually to the parties to the transaction, To leave amounts in a given currency and to receive the equivalent value in a mutually tradable virtual currency, or vice versa. It is further stated, that this company is to be remunerated for his services by a return, which corresponds to the margin, the company includes in the calculation of the exchange rate, to which it is ready, the respective currencies for sale and to buy.

29 The Court has already held, that the fact, that such remuneration does not accept the form of payment of a commission or special charges, is for determining the pecuniary nature of a service irrelevant (Urteil First National Bank of Chicago, C‑172/96, I:C:1998:354, Rn. 33).

30 In light of the foregoing it can be assumed, that transactions such as those at issue in the main proceedings constitutes a provision of services against payment of a consideration, which has a direct link with the service provided, represent, d. h. the supply of services for consideration within the meaning of Article. 2 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c of the VAT Directive.

31 Therefore, the answer to the first question, dass Art. 2 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c is interpreted as the VAT Directive must, standing that transactions such as those at issue in the main proceedings, consisting Exchange conventional currencies in units of virtual currency "Bitcoin" and vice versa, which are executed for an amount, corresponding to the margin, represented by the difference between the price, to which the economic operator concerned buys currencies, and the price, at which he sells them to its customers, is formed, constitute paid services provided for the purposes of that provision.

The second question

32 By its second question, the national court asks, ob Art. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. d is interpreted to f of the VAT Directive must, standing that services such as those at issue in this case, consisting Exchange conventional currencies in units of virtual currency "Bitcoin" and vice versa and that are running against the payment of a sum, corresponding to the margin, represented by the difference between the price, to which the economic operator concerned buys currencies, and the price, at which he sells them to its customers, is formed, are exempt from VAT.

33 First, it should be noted, that the way in. 135 Abs. 1 the VAT Directive exemptions provided for by the Court's case are autonomous Union law concepts, intended to prevent a Member State to Member State different from the application of the VAT system (vgl. in. a. Urteile Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken, C‑540/09, I:C:2011:137, Rn. 19 and the case-law cited, sowie DTZ Zadelhoff, C‑259/11, I:C:2012:423, Rn. 19).

34 It is also settled case, that the terms used to define those such exemptions must be interpreted strictly, since these exemptions constitute exceptions to the general principle, that any service, provides the a taxable person, is subject to VAT (Judgments Ludwig, C‑453/05, I:C:2007:369, Rn. 21, und DTZ Zadelhoff, C‑259/11, I:C:2012:423, Rn. 20).

35 However, the interpretation of those terms must be consistent with the objectives, with the in kind. 135 Abs. 1 the VAT Directive proposed exemptions are pursued, and comply with the requirements of the principle of fiscal neutrality, on the common system of VAT. Therefore, it is not the purpose of this requirement of strict interpretation, if the description of the kind in. 135 Abs. 1 mentioned terms used exemptions are designed, to deprive the exemptions of their intended effect (vgl. in. a. Urteile Don Bosco Real Estate, C‑461/08, I:C:2009:722, Rn. 25, DTZ Zadelhoff, C‑259/11, I:C:2012:423, Rn. 21, and J. J. Come and Sons Management Heerhugowaard, C‑326/11, I:C:2012:461, Rn. 20).

36 It is clear from the Court's case, that the purpose of the in kind. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. d f is to exemptions provided for in particular in, difficulties, which are connected with the determination of the tax base and the amount of deductible VAT, to eliminate (vgl. in. a. Judgment Velvet & Steel Properties, C‑455/05, I:C:2007:232, Rn. 24, and Tiercé Ladbroke decision, C-231/07 and C-232/07, I:C:2008:275, Rn. 24).

37 Incidentally, the basis of these provisions exempt from VAT revenues by their nature, financial transactions, although they do not necessarily have to be carried out by banks or financial institutions (vgl. Judgments Velvet & Steel Properties, C‑455/05, I:C:2007:232, Rn. 21 and 22 and the case-law cited, and Granton Advertising, C‑461/12, I:C:2014:1745, Rn. 29).

38 First, as in Art. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. d of the VAT Directive exemptions provided relates, it should be noted, that Member States and by the wording of that provision revenue. a. "The deposit and current accounts, Payment in- and transfer of funds, in business with demands, Free checks and other negotiable instruments "of the tax.

39 The tax-exempt under that provision revenues are thus defined by the type of services provided. The services in question will only be classified as exempt from tax revenue, If you are an independent broadly whole, that meets the specific, essential functions of a service described in that provision (vgl. Judgment Axa UK, C‑175/09, I:C:2010:646, Rn. 26 and 27 and the case-law cited).

40 From the wording of Article. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. d of the VAT Directive does in the light of the judgment Granton Advertising (C‑461/12, I:C:2014:1745, Rn. 37 and 38) forth, that the transactions covered by that provision concerning services or instruments, whose operation includes a money transfer.

41 Incidentally aims of this provision, as the Advocate General in points. 51 and 52 has her Opinion, not from sales, which relate to a currency itself, as these are the subject of a special provision, namely Article. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. e of the VAT Directive.

42 Because the virtual currency "Bitcoin" is a contractual cash, they can not on the one hand as a current account nor as a deposit, Payment or transfer are considered. Secondly, it provides, In contrast to the in kind. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. d of the VAT directive mentioned requirements, Checks and other negotiable instruments, an immediate cash between those operators constitutes, they accept.

43 Therefore, transactions such as those in the main proceedings fall at issue does not fall within the scope of the measures provided for in this provision exemptions.

44 Secondly, as in Art. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. e of the VAT Directive exemptions provided relates, sees this provision before, that Member States revenues, u be. a. on "Foreign Exchange, Refer banknotes and coins, the legal tender ", exempt.

45 To this end, it should be noted, are that the terms used in that provision in the light of the versions drawn up in all the languages ​​of the Union uniformly interpreted and applied (vgl. to that effect, Velvet & Steel Properties, C‑455/05, I:C:2007:232, Rn. 16 and the case-law cited, and Commission / Spain, C‑189/11, I:C:2013:587, Rn. 56).

46 As the Advocate General in points. 31 to 34 has her Opinion, allow the various language versions of Article. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. e not the VAT Directive, clearly determine, whether that provision is applicable only to transactions, which relate to conventional currencies, conversely, they reflect also covers sales involving another currency.

47 Of the linguistic differences, can not be determined on the basis of an exclusively literal interpretation of the meaning of the term in question. He is to be interpreted in its context and in light of the purpose and scheme of the VAT Directive (vgl. Judgments Velvet & Steel Properties, C‑455/05, I:C:2007:232, Rn. 20 and the case-law cited, and Commission / Spain, C‑189/11, I:C:2013:587, Rn. 56).

48 As in Rn. 36 and 37 the present judgment has been executed, is the in kind. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. e of the VAT Directive exemptions provided is intended in particular, to eliminate the occurring in the context of the taxation of financial transactions difficulties in determining the tax base and the amount of deductible VAT.

49 Sales, which relate to non-conventional currencies, d. h. in currencies other than those, legal in one or more countries are cash, however make financial transactions represent, insofar as these currencies have been accepted by the parties to the transaction as an alternative means of payment to the legal tender, and they serve no purpose other than use as a means of payment.

50 Furthermore, the difficulties in determining the tax base and the amount of deductible VAT, as Mr Hedqvist argued at the hearing, in the particular case of such sales, as they represent Conversions, be identical regardless of, whether it is the kind normally after. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. e of the VAT Directive exempt exchange of conventional currencies or exchange of such currencies in virtual, both sides tradable currencies - or vice versa -, the, without being legal tender, an accepted by the parties to a transaction are cash.

51 It therefore follows from the context and the purpose of Article. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. e of the VAT Directive, that an interpretation of that provision, after which they would only concern sales, have the conventional currencies as the subject, would result in, that they would lose some of their effects.

52 In the main proceedings it is common ground, that the virtual currency "Bitcoin" no purpose other than the use as means of payment is used and that it is accepted in this capacity by certain economic operators.

53 Therefore, the conclusion must be drawn, that kind of. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. e of the VAT Directive in question on services, such as in the main proceedings relates, consisting Exchange conventional currencies in units of virtual currency "Bitcoin" and vice versa, which are executed for an amount, corresponding to the margin, represented by the difference between the price, to which the economic operator in question buys the currencies and the price, at which he sells them to its customers, is formed.

54 The in kind. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. f the VAT Directive provided exemptions finally sufficient to note, that this provision u. a. Recorded revenues, referring to "shares, Interests in companies or associations [as well as] Refer bonds ", d. h. on securities, justify a right of ownership of legal entities, as well as "other securities", which must be comparable to the securities specifically referred to in that provision, by its nature, (Judgment Granton Advertising, C‑461/12, I:C:2014:1745, Rn. 27).

55 It is common ground, that the virtual currency "Bitcoin" neither a securities representing, that establishes a right of ownership of legal entities, another comparable security.

56 Therefore, at issue in the main proceedings gave rise not fall within the scope of the in kind. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. f the VAT Directive exemptions provided.

57 Given the foregoing, the answer to the second question, that:

– Art. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. e of the VAT Directive must be interpreted as, standing that services such as those at issue in this case, consisting Exchange conventional currencies in units of virtual currency "Bitcoin" and vice versa, which are executed for an amount, corresponding to the margin, represented by the difference between the price, to which the economic operator concerned buys currencies, and the price, at which he sells them to its customers, is formed, representing VAT-exempt transactions for the purposes of that provision;

– Art. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. d and f must be interpreted as the VAT Directive must, that such services do not fall within the scope of those provisions.

Costs

58 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. The costs incurred by the other party for submitting observations to the Court, are not recoverable.

On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby:

1. Art. 2 Abs. 1 BUCHST. c of Council Directive 2006/112 / EC of 28. November 2006 on the common system of VAT is to be interpreted, standing that transactions such as those at issue in the main proceedings, consisting Exchange conventional currencies in units of virtual currency "Bitcoin" and vice versa, which are executed for an amount, corresponding to the margin, represented by the difference between the price, to which the economic operator concerned buys currencies, and the price, at which he sells them to its customers, is formed, constitute paid services provided for the purposes of that provision.

2. Art. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. e of Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted, standing that services such as those at issue in this case, consisting Exchange conventional currencies in units of virtual currency "Bitcoin" and vice versa, which are executed for an amount, corresponding to the margin, represented by the difference between the price, to which the economic operator concerned buys currencies, and the price, at which he sells them to its customers, is formed, representing VAT-exempt transactions for the purposes of that provision.

Art. 135 Abs. 1 BUCHST. d and f of the Directive 2006/112 must be interpreted, that such services do not fall within the scope of those provisions.