VATcodexEU VAT case law · Court of Justice and General Court

Special scheme for travel agents EU VAT case law

21 cases of the Court of Justice and the General Court of the European Union on this point of VAT law, from 2005 to 2026.

Search within this topicThe cases ↓

Provisions these cases interpret most

The 21 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-565/24 P-GmbH & Co. KG (Coffee trips)

Judgment · 10 September 2026 · Germany

Travel agents' margin scheme, day excursions financed by on-board sales, and a negative margin

Article 26 applies where a taxable person buys tourist services from third parties, in particular transport, in order to sell them in his own name to consumers in the form of excursions, and the fee received does not cover all the costs of those services, the remainder being financed by the revenue from goods sold to those consumers during the excursion. On the third question, the first sentence of Article 12(1) and the third sentence of Article 26(2) confer no right to a refund of input VAT where the margin on a single supply is negative. The judgment settles that the margin scheme is not displaced by the fact that the travel element is sold below cost and cross-subsidised by the sale of goods during the trip, and that a margin below zero marks the limit of the scheme rather than a claim against the exchequer. Relevant to day-excursion and promotional-selling operators, and to any margin computed on a single supply.

C-763/23 Dragoram Tour

Order · 25 June 2024 · Romania

Reselling air tickets alone falls within the travel agents' scheme

Ruling by reasoned order, the Court held that such a supply does fall within the special scheme, irrespective of the absence of additional services beyond information and advice. It further held that Articles 306(1) and 308 preclude national legislation giving travel agents an option to apply the normal VAT regime in the case of international passenger transport. The special scheme is mandatory where its conditions are met, and a Member State cannot turn it into a choice. Two practical consequences for travel businesses.

C-108/22 Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej

Judgment · 29 June 2023 · Poland

Travel agents' margin scheme for bare accommodation resold B2B

Article 306 applies. A taxable person who buys accommodation services from other taxable persons in its own name and resells them to other economic operators falls within the special scheme for travel agents even where no ancillary services are supplied. Extending Alpenchalets Resorts beyond holiday accommodation to hotels and similar establishments, the Court noted that the multiplicity of locations itself creates the practical difficulties the scheme exists to avoid. Confirms that "no complexity" and "business customer" arguments do not remove bed banks, hotel consolidators, online booking platforms buying in their own name and corporate travel intermediaries from the margin scheme.

C-787/19 Commission v Austria (VAT – Travel agents)

Judgment · 27 January 2021 · Austria

Austria could not exclude business customers from the travel agents scheme or use global margins

The Court finds the infringement established on both counts. The scheme applies to all types of customer, so business clients cannot be carved out, and the margin has to be determined for each supply of travel services rather than globally by category or period. Austria was ordered to pay the costs. The judgment closes the two most common national departures from the margin scheme.

C-422/17 Skarpa Travel

Judgment · 19 December 2018 · Poland

VAT on payments on account under the travel agents' margin scheme

The special scheme is not a self-contained regime. Only the rules on place of supply, taxable amount and deduction are displaced, so Article 65 applies and VAT is chargeable on receipt of the payment on account, provided the tourist services are precisely designated at that time. Where actual costs are not yet incurred or cannot be determined, the margin may be estimated from the projected total cost, taking account of costs already incurred, with adjustment once the definitive individual cost is known. For tour operators and travel agents using the margin scheme, VAT on a deposit is due as received rather than on completion of the trip, provided the trip is identifiable by destination and dates.

C-552/17 Alpenchalets Resorts

Judgment · 19 December 2018 · Germany

Accommodation-only supplies under the travel agents' margin scheme

Accommodation-only supplies bought in from other taxable persons are covered by the margin scheme, and so are such supplies combined with additional ancillary services, whatever the importance of those extras. Each is a single service under Article 307. The single supply analysis from ordinary VAT rules does not apply here. The reduced rate cannot apply, because the single travel agent service is not listed in Annex III. The Court assumed, subject to national verification, that the property owners were taxable persons. Relevant to holiday letting intermediaries, villa and chalet agencies, online accommodation resellers and tour operators buying rooms in and reselling in their own name.

C-380/16 Commission v Germany

Judgment · 8 February 2018 · Germany

Travel agents' margin scheme excluded for business customers and applied on a global base

The Court upheld both complaints. Articles 306 to 310 do not restrict the special scheme to services supplied to final consumers, so excluding supplies to taxable persons acting for their business narrows the scheme beyond what the directive allows. And the margin must be determined by reference to each supply of travel. A global computation for groups of services or for a whole tax period is incompatible with Article 73 and with the structure of the scheme. Germany was ordered to pay the costs. The judgment that settled the customer-based reading of the travel agents' scheme against Germany and several other Member States, and it matters well beyond tour operators.

C-599/12 Jetair and BTWE Travel4you

Judgment · 13 March 2014

Standstill taxation of travel agents' services for journeys outside the EU

The standstill provisions do not preclude legislation adopted during the transposition period imposing VAT on travel agents' non-EU journeys. The Directive expressly fixed 01-01-1978 as the reference date, so such a law did not seriously compromise its result. A Member State taxing those services on 01-01-1978 need not apply Article 309. Article 370 with Annex X, Part A, point 4 is valid despite the resulting divergence, harmonisation being still partial. Treating margin-scheme travel agents differently from intermediaries is lawful, the two not being comparable. Confirms that Belgium may continue to tax margin-scheme supplies relating to journeys outside the EU, closing off refund claims built on Article 309 for periods since 1978.

C-300/12 Ibero Tours

Judgment · 16 January 2014 · Germany

An intermediary agent discount does not reduce its own taxable amount

The Court holds that those principles do not apply. The agent is not a link in the chain of supply of the principal service. It supplies a distinct intermediary service to the tour operator, and the discount it funds out of its own commission does not alter the consideration it receives for that service. The taxable amount of the intermediary service is therefore unaffected. The judgment marks the boundary of Elida Gibbs.

C-189/11 Commission v Spain

Judgment · 26 September 2013 · Spain

Scope of the travel agents' special scheme, customer-based approach

Given the divergence between language versions, the scheme must be read purposively. Articles 306 to 310 follow the customer-based approach, so it applies regardless of whether the customer is the traveller or another operator reselling the package. The remaining three complaints succeeded. Spain infringed Article 306 by excluding retail agents' own-name sales, Articles 168 and 226 by the flat 6% invoiced and deductible amount (also discriminatory as limited to services supplied in Spain), and Articles 306 to 310 by allowing a global margin per tax period. The judgment settles that the margin scheme covers business-to-business sales of packages, so wholesalers and operators selling on to other agents fall within it and cannot be pushed onto the normal rules. Relevant to tour operators, wholesalers and travel intermediaries, and to advisers reviewing legacy national margin scheme practices.

C-193/11 Commission v Poland

Judgment · 26 September 2013 · Poland

The travel agents margin scheme applies on the customer approach, not only to travellers

The Court dismisses the action as unfounded. Articles 306 to 310 are to be interpreted according to the customer based approach, so the scheme is not limited to supplies made to travellers themselves. The suggested risk that agents might apply the scheme when acting as intermediaries is not made out, since the second subparagraph of Article 306(1) expressly excludes that. Poland costs were awarded against the Commission. Decided with the parallel actions against France, Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal, Finland and the Czech Republic, this is the judgment that settled the customer approach across the Union.

C-236/11 Commission v Italy

Judgment · 26 September 2013 · Italy

Travel agents' margin scheme, sale to another travel agent, customer or traveller

The action is dismissed. Given the divergence between the language versions, Articles 306 to 310 must be read in the light of the scheme's purpose, which is to simplify the VAT rules for travel agents and to allocate the tax on each individual service to the Member State of final consumption and the tax on the margin to the Member State of the agent. The customer-based approach serves both aims best, so the scheme applies whatever the type of customer, including an operator that assembles a package and sells it to another agent for resale. The fact that the scheme is an exception to be interpreted strictly does not justify a reading that would deprive it of its effectiveness, and the risk of agents applying it when acting as intermediaries is excluded by the second subparagraph of Article 306(1). The Commission is ordered to pay the costs. The judgment holds that Italy's customer-based application of the margin scheme is the correct reading of Articles 306 to 310, in one of the parallel infringement actions the Commission brought against eight Member States on this point. Relevant to tour operators and wholesalers selling packages to other agents for resale, and to advisers reviewing the margin scheme treatment of such sales.

C-269/11 Commission v Czech Republic

Judgment · 26 September 2013 · Czechia

Travel agents' margin scheme, traveller approach or customer approach

The action is dismissed. Given the divergence between the language versions, Articles 306 to 310 must be read in the light of the scheme's purpose, which is to simplify the VAT rules for travel agents and to allocate the tax on each individual service to the Member State of final consumption and the tax on the margin to the Member State of the agent. The customer-based approach serves both aims best, so the scheme applies whatever the type of customer, including an operator that assembles a package and sells it to another agent for resale. Article 89 of Law No 235/2004 on VAT, which lets travel agents apply the scheme to supplies to persons other than travellers, is therefore compatible with the Directive. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs. The judgment holds that the Czech Republic's customer-based application of the margin scheme is the correct reading of Articles 306 to 310, in one of the parallel infringement actions the Commission brought against eight Member States on this point. Relevant to tour operators and wholesalers selling packages to other agents for resale, and to advisers reviewing the margin scheme treatment of such sales.

C-293/11 Commission v Greece

Judgment · 26 September 2013 · Greece

Travel agents' margin scheme, customer approach or traveller approach

The action is dismissed. Given the divergence between the language versions, Articles 306 to 310 must be read in the light of the scheme's purpose, which is to simplify the VAT rules for travel agents and to allocate the tax on each individual service to the Member State of final consumption and the tax on the margin to the Member State of the agent. The customer-based approach serves both aims best, so the scheme applies whatever the type of customer, including an operator that assembles a package and sells it to another agent for resale. Article 43 of the Greek VAT Code, which the administrative circular of 10 July 1987 reads as also covering sales by one travel agent to another, is therefore compatible with the Directive. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs. The judgment holds that Greece's customer-based application of the margin scheme is the correct reading of Articles 306 to 310, in one of the parallel infringement actions the Commission brought against eight Member States on this point. Relevant to tour operators and wholesalers selling packages to other agents for resale, and to advisers reviewing the margin scheme treatment of such sales.

C-296/11 Commission v France

Judgment · 26 September 2013 · France

France was entitled to apply the margin scheme to sales to other travel agents

The Court dismisses the action as unfounded. Articles 306 to 310 must be interpreted following the customer based approach, so the special scheme is not restricted to sales made directly to travellers. The Commission was ordered to pay the costs incurred by France, and the seven intervening Member States bore their own. One of the eight judgments delivered on 26-09-2013 that settled the customer approach.

C-309/11 Commission v Finland

Judgment · 26 September 2013 · Finland

Finland was entitled to apply the margin scheme to sales to persons other than travellers

The Court dismisses the action as unfounded. Articles 306 to 310 are to be interpreted according to the customer based approach, so the scheme is not confined to supplies made to travellers. The concern that agents might apply the scheme while acting as intermediaries is unfounded, because the second subparagraph of Article 306(1) rules that out expressly. Finland costs were awarded against the Commission. One of the group of judgments of 26-09-2013 that resolved the traveller versus customer question in favour of the customer approach across the Union.

C-450/11 Commission v Portugal

Judgment · 26 September 2013 · Portugal

Travel agents' margin scheme, customer approach or traveller approach

The action is dismissed. As in the parallel cases decided the same day, the divergence between language versions means that Articles 306 to 310 must be interpreted by reference to the scheme's purpose, simplification of the VAT rules for travel agents and a balanced allocation of the revenue between Member States, which the customer-based approach achieves best. The scheme therefore covers supplies made in the agent's own name to any customer, including another travel agent reselling the package, and Decree-Law No 221/85, which applies it to operations carried out in the agent's own name vis-à-vis the customer, is compatible with the Directive. The Commission is ordered to pay the costs. The judgment holds that Portugal's customer-based application of the margin scheme is the correct reading of Articles 306 to 310, in one of the parallel infringement actions the Commission brought against eight Member States on this point. Relevant to tour operators and wholesalers selling packages to other agents for resale, and to advisers reviewing the margin scheme treatment of such sales.

C-557/11 Kozak

Judgment · 25 October 2012 · Poland

In-house transport supplied within a travel package

The margin scheme covers only services bought in from third parties. In-house transport does not form part of the single service in Articles 307 and 308, even where it is an essential element of the overall tourist service, and the normal regime single supply case law does not alter that. It is therefore taxed under the normal rules, including as to rate, and benefits from any reduced rate the Member State has adopted for passenger transport. Confirms the split treatment of mixed packages for tour operators and travel agents who supply any element with their own resources, typically coach transport but the reasoning is not limited to transport.

C-220/11 Star Coaches

Order · 1 March 2012 · Czechia

Coach operator supplying only transport to travel agents is outside the travel agents' scheme

By reasoned order under Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure, relying on Van Ginkel, Madgett and Baldwin, iSt and Minerva Kulturreisen, the Court held that a transport company merely providing coach transport to travel agents, without other services such as accommodation, tour guiding or advice, does not carry out transactions falling within Article 306. Absence of accommodation is not itself decisive. The scheme can apply to non-agents whose supplies go beyond a single service. The first question was not answered. Confirms that suppliers up the chain to travel agents, coach and bus operators in particular, stay on the normal rules and retain full input tax recovery, including where journeys are bought in from subcontractors. Relevant to passenger transport businesses, incoming operators and their advisers, and to tax authorities using the scheme to deny repayment claims.

C-31/10 Minerva Kulturreisen

Judgment · 9 December 2010 · Germany

Isolated sale of event tickets by a travel agent

Article 26 does not apply to the isolated sale of opera tickets by a travel agent where no travel service is supplied. As a derogation from the normal rules the scheme applies only so far as needed to meet its purpose, and the service must relate to a journey. Van Ginkel means accommodation alone qualifies even without transport, not that any service of a travel agent qualifies. Taxing ticket sales differently depending on the seller's status would distort competition. Travel agents and tour operators cannot extend the margin scheme to standalone sales of tickets, whether for opera, concerts, sport or similar events, simply because they sit in a travel portfolio.

C-200/04 iSt

Judgment · 13 October 2005 · Germany

Language study trips and the travel agents' scheme

The scheme applies. The trader need not be a travel agent or tour operator in the ordinary sense. The only relevant criterion is whether the bought-in travel services are ancillary. Here flights and accommodation materially affected the package price and were not marginal. Neither the purpose of the trip nor the length of the stay is a condition, and the education exemption does not displace the scheme. In any event a commercial company is not a body covered by that exemption. Relevant to language travel, student exchange and study-abroad organisers, and more widely to any trader selling packages in its own name alongside a non-travel principal service.

Related topics

Discrepancies between language versions · Supply of goods or services · National derogations · Taxable amount · VAT rates · Reduced rate · Refund of VAT · Chargeable event, chargeability and collection of VAT · Harmonisation of fiscal legislation