Skatteverket v Lyko Operations AB (C-436/24)

Contents

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber)5 March 2026^note(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Common system of value added tax (VAT) — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 30a — Supply of goods — Concept of voucher — Classification — Customer loyalty programme in the form of points awarded on the basis of previous purchases — Points which may be redeemed for products of low value)In Case C‑436/24,REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Supreme Administrative Court, Sweden), made by decision of 19 June 2024, received at the Court on 20 June 2024, in the proceedingsSkatteverketvLyko Operations AB,THE COURT (Ninth Chamber),composed of M. Condinanzi (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, N. Jääskinen and R. Frendo, Judges,Advocate General: J. Kokott,Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,having regard to the written procedure,after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:– the Skatteverket, by K. Alvesson,– Lyko Operations AB, by R. Lyko,– the Belgian Government, by S. Baeyens and P. Cottin, acting as Agents,– the European Commission, by P. Carlin and W. Roels, acting as Agents,after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 11 September 2025,gives the following

Judgment

1This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 30a and 73a 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 (‘the VAT Directive’).

2The request has been made in proceedings between the Skatteverket (Tax Agency, Sweden) and Lyko Operations AB, a Swedish limited company, regarding a tax ruling concerning the treatment for value added tax (VAT) purposes of a customer loyalty programme envisaged by that company.

Legal context

European Union law

3Recitals 1, 2, 4 and 6 of Council Directive 2016/1065 of 27 June 2016 amending Directive 2006/112/EC as regards the treatment of vouchers are worded as follows:(1) … Directive [2006/112] sets out rules on the time and place of supply of goods and services, the taxable amount, the chargeability of [VAT] and the entitlement to deduction. Those rules are, however, not sufficiently clear or comprehensive to ensure consistency in the tax treatment of transactions involving vouchers, to an extent which has undesirable consequences for the proper functioning of the internal market.(2) To ensure certain and uniform treatment, to be consistent with the principles of a general tax on consumption exactly proportional to the price of goods and services, to avoid inconsistencies, distortion of competition, double or non-taxation and to reduce the risk of tax avoidance, there is a need for specific rules applying to the VAT treatment of vouchers.…(4) Only vouchers which can be used for redemption against goods or services should be targeted by these rules. However, instruments entitling the holder to a discount upon purchase of goods or services but carrying no right to receive such goods or services should not be targeted by these rules.…(6) So as to identify clearly what constitutes a voucher for the purposes of VAT and to distinguish vouchers from payment instruments, it is necessary to define vouchers, which can have physical or electronic forms, recognising their essential attributes, in particular the nature of the entitlement attached to a voucher and the obligation to accept it as consideration for the supply of goods or services.’

4Article 30a of the VAT Directive provides:‘For the purposes of this Directive, the following definitions shall apply:(1) “voucher” means an instrument where there is an obligation to accept it as consideration or part consideration for a supply of goods or services and where the goods or services to be supplied or the identities of their potential suppliers are either indicated on the instrument itself or in related documentation, including the terms and conditions of use of such instrument;(2) “single-purpose voucher” means a voucher where the place of supply of the goods or services to which the voucher relates, and the VAT due on those goods or services, are known at the time of issue of the voucher;(3) “multi-purpose voucher” means a voucher, other than a single-purpose voucher.’

5Article 73a of that directive provides:‘Without prejudice to Article 73, the taxable amount of the supply of goods or services provided in respect of a multi-purpose voucher shall be equal to the consideration paid for the voucher or, in the absence of information on that consideration, the monetary value indicated on the multi-purpose voucher itself or in the related documentation, less the amount of VAT relating to the goods or services supplied.’

Swedish law

6The mervärdesskattelagen (2023:200) (Law on VAT (2023:200)) includes provisions which correspond to Articles 30a and 73a of the VAT Directive.

The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

7Lyko Operations sells hair care and beauty products in physical shops and online. The company plans to develop a customer loyalty programme and applied for a tax ruling from the Skatterättsnämnden (Revenue Law Commission, Sweden) to clarify how the programme should be treated for the purposes of VAT.

8It is apparent from the order for reference that Lyko Operations’s customers, who are private individuals, will be able to opt into that programme at no extra cost. Under the programme, customers will receive points for each purchase of products from the company’s ordinary range, which they can then redeem for items in an area called ‘points shop’. Points will only be redeemable in connection with a new purchase of products from the ordinary range and the items in the points shop will be regularly reassorted and will include items from that range. The products will mainly be of low value (only exceptionally exceeding 500 kronor (SEK), that is, approximately EUR 50) and will be subject to different VAT rates (beauty products being taxed at 25% and food supplements being taxed at 12%, for instance).

9According to the order for reference, each product will be priced in points, and the pricing will be such that customers will be able to obtain products from the points shop for a value equivalent to about 2% to 10% of their initial purchase. Each point redeemed by a customer will be linked to the total purchases made in the month in which the point was accrued. The points will not be redeemable for money or purchasable for money, and points will be personal and non-transferable. Products in the points shop will also not be available in return for a combination of points and payment in money. Any points acquired will be lost if not used within two years.

10In that context, Lyko Operations asked the Revenue Law Commission whether the loyalty programme entailed the supply of a ‘voucher’ to its customers and, more specifically, of a ‘multi-purpose voucher’ within the meaning of the VAT Directive. If so, the company also sought to ascertain how the taxable amount should be calculated when the points are redeemed in return for products in the points shop since the customer will not make any specific payment for the voucher and that voucher will not be assigned any monetary value. According to Lyko Operations, those two questions were asked for the purpose of obtaining clarifications as to a situation where that company would be supplying goods within Sweden to Swedish customers.

11By a tax ruling of 17 November 2023, the Revenue Law Commission replied that the loyalty programme did not entail the transfer of vouchers to customers, since the points issued under that programme had no specific monetary value and were awarded to customers for no consideration.

12Both the Tax Agency and Lyko Operations brought an action in respect of that tax ruling before the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Supreme Administrative Court, Sweden), which is the referring court. That agency contends that that ruling should be upheld, since, unlike the case of a voucher, points issued under the loyalty programme only offer customers the option to choose an additional item after purchasing other items for a certain amount. Lyko Operations, for its part, contends that that court should vary the tax ruling and declare, first, that the points awarded to customers under the loyalty programme constitute a voucher and, second, that the taxable amount in relation to the transaction arising when the points are redeemed is SEK 0.

13The referring court notes that the parties to the case before it have opposing views on several points concerning certain aspects of the interpretation of the definition of ‘voucher’, set out in Article 30a of the VAT Directive, on which the Court of Justice has not yet ruled.

14Furthermore, in the event that the Court considers that a points system such as the one at issue before the referring court comes within the definition of ‘voucher’ and constitutes, as the parties to the proceedings before it concur, a ‘multi-purpose voucher’, the referring court is uncertain as to how to determine the taxable amount of the transactions at issue under the provisions of Article 73a of the VAT Directive.

15In those circumstances the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Supreme Administrative Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:(1) Does an instrument in the form of points – such as that at issue in the main proceedings – constitute a voucher as defined in Article 30a of the VAT Directive where the points are awarded under a customer loyalty programme designed in such a way that a customer who purchases goods obtains points according to the [amount spent on] the purchases and is then entitled, when making a future purchase, to use the points to obtain further goods from the seller’s range?(2) If the answer to [the first question] is [in the affirmative], how is the taxable amount under Article 73a of the VAT Directive to be determined when the points are used to obtain goods from the seller?’

Consideration of the questions referred

The first question

16By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether the concept of ‘voucher’ defined in point 1 of Article 30a of the VAT Directive must be interpreted as including the issue of points awarded by a supplier to its customers in the context of a loyalty programme under which those points are determined on the basis of the amount spent on the purchase of goods and are used by those customers to obtain additional goods offered for sale by that supplier when a new purchase is made from that supplier’s range.

17As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, although it is for the referring court alone to rule on the classification of the instrument consisting in the award of points at issue in the main proceedings as coming within the scope of point 1 of Article 30a of the VAT Directive, in the light of the particular circumstances of that case, the fact remains that the Court of Justice has jurisdiction to elicit from the provisions of that directive the criteria that the referring court may or must apply to that end (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 April 2024, Finanzamt O (Single-purpose vouchers), C‑68/23, EU:C:2024:342, paragraph 45 and the case-law cited).

18Moreover, there is nothing preventing a national court from asking the Court of Justice to rule on such a classification, although it is for the national court to make the findings of fact necessary for that classification in the light of all the material in the file in its possession (judgment of 18 April 2024, Finanzamt O (Single-purpose vouchers), C‑68/23, EU:C:2024:342, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited).

19Nevertheless, as the Court has already had occasion to point out, Directive 2006/112, in the version prior to the amendments resulting from Directive 2016/1065, did not lay down specific provisions, for the purpose of levying VAT, governing transactions subject to that tax in which vouchers were used (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 April 2024, Finanzamt O (Single-purpose vouchers), C‑68/23, EU:C:2024:342, paragraph 29).

20It is evident from recitals 1 and 2 of Directive 2016/1065 that it was in order to remedy the diversity of solutions adopted by the Member States, which were liable, in particular, to create inconsistencies, distortion of competition, situations of double taxation or non-taxation, that the EU legislature adopted that directive, inserting into the text of Directive 2006/112, in particular, Articles 30a, 30b and 73a, applicable from 1 January 2019, with the aim of ensuring certain and uniform treatment of vouchers and of being consistent with the principle of a general tax on consumption exactly proportional to the price of goods and services (see, to that effect, judgment of 18 April 2024, Finanzamt O (Single-purpose vouchers), C‑68/23, EU:C:2024:342, paragraph 30).

21Thus, for the purposes of the VAT Directive, point 1 of Article 30a of that directive defines ‘voucher’ as an instrument where, first, ‘there is an obligation to accept it as consideration or part consideration for a supply of goods or services’ and, second, ‘where the goods or services to be supplied or the identities of their potential suppliers are either indicated on the instrument itself or in related documentation, including the terms and conditions of use of such instrument’.

22That definition therefore does not include all the instruments commonly referred to as ‘vouchers’, but only those which satisfy the two cumulative conditions set out in point 1 of Article 30a of the VAT Directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 28 April 2022, DSAB Destination Stockholm, C‑637/20, EU:C:2022:304, paragraph 21).

23In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that the first question asked by the referring court exclusively concerns the satisfaction of the first condition set out in point 1 of Article 30a of the VAT Directive, namely whether it should be considered, in relation to the instrument at issue, that ‘there is an obligation to accept it as consideration or part consideration for a supply of goods or services’, since the second condition, as set out in paragraph 21 of the present judgment, is, to all appearances, satisfied, as the Advocate General stated in point 28 of her Opinion.

24For a given instrument to satisfy that first condition, point 1 of Article 30a of the VAT Directive states that there has to be an ‘obligation’ for the operator presented with it to accept it as consideration or part consideration for a supply of goods or services.

25That condition means, as emphasised by recital 4 of Directive 2016/1065, that instruments which entail no right for the holder to receive such goods or services but which, for instance, only entitle the holder to a discount upon further purchase of goods or services cannot be classified as a ‘voucher’, within the meaning of point 1 of Article 30a of the VAT Directive.

26As stated in recital 6 of Directive 2016/1065, one of the essential characteristics of a ‘voucher’, within the meaning of point 1 of Article 30a of the VAT Directive, is therefore the nature of the entitlement attached to it and the obligation to accept it as consideration for the supply of goods or services.

27In the present case and in the light of the information provided by the referring court, the points awarded to Lyko Operations’s customers on the basis of the amount spent on their purchases are to be used in Lyko Operations’s points shop, in combination with a new purchase of products from that company, and allow those customers to obtain products of low value that that company offers for sale.

28In those circumstances, as the Advocate General noted, in essence, in points 31 to 33 of her Opinion, the points described do not create any obligation on the part of the supplier presented with them to accept them as consideration for a supply of goods. Those points only enable holders who decide to make a new purchase from that supplier to obtain, as a bonus, additional goods of low value.

29Since, in the light of the information provided by the referring court, the instrument at issue in the case in the main proceedings does not appear to satisfy one of the two cumulative conditions necessary for it to be classified as a ‘voucher’, within the meaning of point 1 of Article 30a of the VAT Directive, that instrument cannot constitute either a ‘single-purpose voucher’ or a ‘multi-purpose voucher’, within the meaning of points 2 and 3 of Article 30a of that directive.

30In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question is that the concept of ‘voucher’ defined in point 1 of Article 30a of the VAT Directive must be interpreted as not including the issue of points awarded by a supplier to its customers in the context of a loyalty programme under which those points are determined on the basis of the amount spent on the purchase of goods and are used by those customers to obtain additional goods offered for sale by that supplier when a new purchase is made from that supplier’s range, where there is no obligation for the supplier to accept those points as consideration or part consideration for a supply of goods.

The second question

31In view of the answer given to the first question, there is no need to answer the second question.

Costs

32Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring 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.

Operative part

On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby rules: The concept of ‘voucher’ defined in point 1 of Article 30a 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,must be interpreted as not including the issue of points awarded by a supplier to its customers in the context of a loyalty programme under which those points are determined on the basis of the amount spent on the purchase of goods and are used by those customers to obtain additional goods offered for sale by that supplier when a new purchase is made from that supplier’s range, where there is no obligation for the supplier to accept those points as consideration or part consideration for a supply of goods.