VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Betting, lotteries and gambling EU VAT case law

6 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2010 to 2024.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 6 cases, most recent first

Under each case, what the Court decided, from its summary. The summaries are AI-generated and are not official documents: open the case for the Court’s own text.

C-741/22 Casino de Spa and Others

Judgment · 12 September 2024 · Belgium

VAT exemption for online lotteries but not other online gambling

Differentiated treatment is permissible provided objective differences (chance alone determining winners, the waiting period, stakes and odds, cultural factors) considerably influence the average consumer's choice. The identity, legal form, licence category, regulatory regime and legislative objectives of providers are irrelevant. National courts must disapply provisions incompatible with Article 135(1)(i), a constitutional court's maintenance of effects being irrelevant. Tax wrongly levied is refundable unless refund unjustly enriches the taxable person. No damages equivalent to the VAT paid on unlawful State aid grounds. Relevant to gambling operators in Member States that split the exemption by game type.

C-73/23 Chaudfontaine Loisirs

Judgment · 12 September 2024 · Belgium

VAT exemption for online gambling and the limits of national discretion

Differentiating between online non-lottery gambling and lotteries or offline gambling is compatible with Article 135(1)(i) and neutrality, provided the objective differences are liable to have a considerable influence on the average consumer's choice. That is for the national court to verify. Article 135(1)(i) has direct effect, so a constitutional court's decision to maintain the effects of annulled provisions is irrelevant and they must be disapplied. Refund of VAT levied in breach is due, unless it would unjustly enrich the taxable person. Operators of online casino and betting products in Member States that tax electronic gambling while exempting lotteries and land based play now have a harder neutrality argument. Relevant to gambling advisers and to anyone litigating retrospective effects of annulled tax legislation.

C-440/12 Metropol Spielstätten

Judgment · 24 October 2013 · Germany

Cumulative VAT and gaming tax on slot machines, and the taxable amount

Cumulative levying is permitted provided the special national tax cannot be characterised as a turnover tax. Cash receipts over a set interval are a permissible taxable amount. With statutory limits on stakes, winnings and losses, the consideration is only the proportion of stakes the operator may keep, following Glawe. The hopper performs the same function as the earlier reserve compartment. Full offset of VAT against an unharmonised tax is not precluded. The pass-on questions were hypothetical, since the legislation does allow full pass-on. Confirms the German cash box method and closes the Glawe-based challenge to it, including the argument that new hopper technology distinguishes modern machines. Relevant to gaming advisers in any Member State with sector-specific levies.

C-259/10 Rank Group

Judgment · 10 November 2011 · United Kingdom

Fiscal neutrality and the gambling exemption for slot machines and mechanised bingo

A difference in treatment of supplies identical or similar from the consumer's viewpoint, meeting the same needs, suffices. No separate proof of competition or distortion is needed. Licensing categories, regulatory regimes, legality, operator identity, venue and unharmonised taxes are irrelevant. For two slot machine types, comparability is judged from the average consumer's perspective, notably stakes, prizes and chances of winning. No repayment where the comparator exemption was merely an unlawful administrative practice. No due diligence defence. Operators of gaming machines and similar gambling products can challenge selective taxation without economic evidence of competition, and cannot be answered by pointing to different gambling licensing regimes. Relevant to gambling operators, betting shops and advisers handling historic overpayment claims.

C-464/10 Henfling and Others

Judgment · 14 July 2011 · Belgium

Commission agents collecting bets and the gambling exemption

The Court held that the Article 6(4) fiction is general and extends to exemptions, so where an operator acts in his own name but on behalf of a bet-taking undertaking in collecting exempt bets, the principal is deemed to supply exempt bets to that operator. That applies only if the operator genuinely acts in his own name on the facts. National provisions extending the fiction beyond Article 6(4) criteria are irrelevant, distinguishing United Utilities call centre services. Confirms that the undisclosed agent fiction reclassifies the intermediary's remuneration as an exempt betting supply received from the principal, rather than a taxable intermediary service. Relevant to gambling and lottery networks using retail outlets, and more broadly to any exempt sector using commission agents, since the reasoning is not specific to betting.

C-58/09 Leo-Libera

Judgment · 10 June 2010 · Germany

Member States may exempt only certain forms of gambling

The Court holds that it does. The discretion conferred by that provision allows Member States to exempt only certain forms of gambling. Reading it otherwise would create legal uncertainty, since the same form of gambling would move in and out of compliance as turnover shifted, and would conflict with Article 131. Fiscal neutrality is not infringed where the exempt and taxable forms are not in competition with one another. The judgment marks the outer limit of Linneweber.

Related topics

Exemptions · Fiscal neutrality · Obligation of good faith · Direct effect · Recovery of undue payment · Unjust enrichment · State aid · Supply of goods or services · Taxable amount · Refund of VAT