ECJ C-101/24 ( XYRALITY) – Judgment- German developer is not liable for VAT on services via an app store

On October 9, 2025, the ECJ issued the judgment in the case C-101/24 (XYRALITY).

Context: Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Article 28 — Participation in the supply of services — Articles 44 and 45 — Place of supply of services — Article 203 — VAT to be shown on an invoice — Services supplied electronically — Appstore — In-app purchases

Summary

Context and Reference: The case involves a preliminary ruling requested by the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court, Germany) regarding the application of Articles 28, 44, 45, and 203 of the VAT Directive (2006/112/EC) concerning the taxation of services supplied electronically by XYRALITY GmbH through an app store operated by an Irish company.
Key Questions: The referring court sought clarification on whether Article 28 of the VAT Directive applies to situations where a German developer provides electronic services to EU non-taxable persons via an Irish app store, and whether this affects the place of supply and VAT liability.
Court’s Decision on Article 28: The Court ruled that Article 28 applies even if the order confirmations identify the German developer as the supplier, thus treating the Irish app store as if it received the services and supplied them to end customers.
Determination of Place of Supply: The Court concluded that the place of supply of services, when Article 28 is applicable, should be determined according to Article 44 of the VAT Directive, which states that the place is where the taxable person has established their economic activity.
VAT Liability under Article 203: The Court held that the German developer is not liable for VAT in Germany under Article 203, despite being named as the supplier in order confirmations, as the services were supplied to non-taxable persons, and the VAT implications were managed by the app store operator.

Articles in the EU VAT Directive

Articles 28, 44, 45 and 203 of the EU VAT Directive 2006/112/EC.

Article 28
Where a taxable person acting in his own name but on behalf of another person takes part in a supply of services, he shall be deemed to have received and supplied those services himself.

Article 44
The place of supply of services to a taxable person acting as such shall be the place where that person has established his business. However, if those services are provided to a fixed establishment of the taxable person located in a place other than the place where he has established his business, the place of supply of those services shall be the place where that fixed establishment is located. In the absence of such place of establishment or fixed establishment, the place of supply of services shall be the place where the taxable person who receives such services has his permanent address or usually resides.

Article 45
The place of supply of services to a non-taxable person shall be the place where the supplier has established his business. However, if those services are provided from a fixed establishment of the supplier located in a place other than the place where he has established his business, the place of supply of those services shall be the place where that fixed establishment is located. In the absence of such place of establishment or fixed establishment, the place of supply of services shall be the place where the supplier has his permanent address or usually resides.

Article 203
VAT shall be payable by any person who enters the VAT on an invoice.

Article 9a of The Implementing Regulation 282/2011

Article 9a

1. For the application of Article 28 of Directive 2006/112/EC, where electronically supplied services are supplied through a telecommunications network, an interface or a portal such as a marketplace for applications, a taxable person taking part in that supply shall be presumed to be acting in his own name but on behalf of the provider of those services unless that provider is explicitly indicated as the supplier by that taxable person and that is reflected in the contractual arrangements between the parties.

In order to regard the provider of electronically supplied services as being explicitly indicated as the supplier of those services by the taxable person, the following conditions shall be met:

- (a) the invoice issued or made available by each taxable person taking part in the supply of the electronically supplied services must identify such services and the supplier thereof;
- (b) the bill or receipt issued or made available to the customer must identify the electronically supplied services and the supplier thereof.

For the purposes of this paragraph, a taxable person who, with regard to a supply of electronically supplied services, authorises the charge to the customer or the delivery of the services, or sets the general terms and conditions of the supply, shall not be permitted to explicitly indicate another person as the supplier of those services.

2. Paragraph 1 shall also apply where telephone services provided through the internet, including voice over internet Protocol (VoIP), are supplied through a telecommunications network, an interface or a portal such as a marketplace for applications and are supplied under the same conditions as set out in that paragraph.

3. This Article shall not apply to a taxable person who only provides for processing of payments in respect of electronically supplied services or of telephone services provided through the internet, including voice over internet Protocol (VoIP), and who does not take part in the supply of those electronically supplied services or telephone services.

Facts

The parties are in dispute about the VAT taxation of so–called ‘in–application purchases’ effected during the years from 2012 to 2014 (the years at issue), in
which Article 9a of Implementing Regulation No 282/2011 had not yet entered into force.
The applicant and defendant in the appeal (‘ the applicant’), a taxable person established in the Federal Republic of Germany, develops and distributes game
applications for mobile devices. For distribution purposes, it uses, inter alia, an internet–based digital distribution platform for software (referred to as a ‘marketplace for applications’). The marketplace for applications was operated by Ireland–based X until 31 December 2014. During the years at issue, end customers who used mobile devices with a specific operating system were able to download the applicant’s game applications solely via the marketplace for applications.
During that period X entered into standardised agreements, governing the distribution of products via the marketplace for applications, with developers such as the applicant. Those agreements stipulated that the sellers of the products offered through the marketplace for applications were their developers. X was to display the products on behalf of the developers and make them available for the end customers to download and purchase. X was to receive a commission in return for providing those services. The payment transaction was to be processed via the marketplace for applications.
During the years at issue, various downloadable game applications were available to the end customers in the marketplace for applications. The vast majority of those games did not originate from X but rather from the designers themselves. When presented in the marketplace for applications, the name of the developer was also displayed for each game. During the years at issue, the applicant appeared in the marketplace for applications and its company name, legal form and address were displayed.
Although the game applications developed by the applicant could be downloaded free of charge from the marketplace for applications, it was necessary for the end customer to purchase improvements or other benefits (in–application purchases) in order to advance in the game or obtain other benefits. The end customers were able to select the desired improvements or benefits in the applicant’s game application and have them activated for a fee.
The in–application purchases were processed via the marketplace for applications by means of a method of payment saved there by the end customer. The applicant was not named as the supplier in the course of the purchase transaction. Only X’s logo and certain links were visible. Upon completion of the purchase process, the end customer received an order confirmation from X by email. That email contained the logo of the marketplace for applications and a statement thatpurchase was transacted with the relevant developer (in this case, the applicant) in the marketplace for applications.
The applicant initially regarded itself as the supplier to the end customers. It therefore declared German VAT for end customers based in the European Union, on the ground that the place of supply was, pursuant to Article 3a(1) of the UStG and Article 45 of Directive 2006/112, its place of establishment, and paid the German VAT to the defendant and to the appellant in the appeal on a point of law, namely the Finanzamt (Tax Office) (‘the FA’).
On 29 January 2016, the applicant submitted corrected VAT returns for the years at issue. It was now of the opinion that this was a case in which services were commissioned (Paragraph 3(11) of the UStG, Article 28 of Directive 2006/112). It had provided its services to X, and X had provided the services to the end customers. Under Paragraph 3a(2) of the UStG and Article 44 of Directive 2006/112, the place of supply of its services to X was in Ireland.
The FA took the view that X was merely to be regarded as an intermediary. It is true that the respective purchase process took place via the marketplace for applications. However, the end customers were made aware of the terms of use at each individual step of the in–application purchase. X had thus clearly informed the end customers in the course of each purchase that the transactions were being executed on behalf a third party and that X was merely collecting the amount owed. The FA therefore issued VAT assessments in which the corrections made by the applicant had not been not taken into account.
The Finanzgericht (Finance Court) (‘the FG’) upheld the action brought by the applicant. It considered that the appellant’s transactions were not taxable in Germany because the recipient of its services was X. According to Paragraph 3a(2) of the UStG and Article 44 of Directive 2006/112, the place of supply was in Ireland.
The FA’s appeal on a point of law (Revision) to the referring court is directed against the judgment of the Finanzgericht (Fiscal Court).

Questions

Under circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, in which a German taxable person (developer) supplied, before 1 January 2015, a service by electronic means to non–taxable persons (end customers) established within the territory of the European Union, via a marketplace for applications operated by an Irish taxable person, is Article 28 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax to be applied, with the result that the Irish taxable person is treated as if it had received those services from the developer and supplied them to the end customers, because the marketplace for applications did not name the developer as the supplier of the service and show German VAT until it did so in the order confirmations issued to the end customers?
If the first question referred is answered in the affirmative: Is the place of supply of the fictitious service supplied by the developer to the marketplace for applications under Article 28 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax in Ireland, by virtue of Article 44 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, or in the Federal Republic of Germany, by virtue of Article 45 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax?
If, by virtue of the answers to the first and second questions referred for a preliminary ruling, the developer has not supplied any services in the Federal Republic of Germany: Is the developer subject to a tax liability for German VAT under Article 203 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, on the ground that the marketplace for applications, acting in accordance with an agreement, named the developer as the supplier of the service and showed German VAT in the order confirmations it sent by email to the end customers, even though the end customers are not entitled to deduct input VAT

AG Opinion

(1) Article 28 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2008/8/EC of 12 February 2008,

is to be interpreted as applying to the situation of the supply, prior to 1 January 2015, by electronic means, of services consisting in making available computer programs (mobile applications) and additional services through a portal (app store), with the result that a taxable person operating an app store is treated as if it had received those services from an application developer and supplied them to end users.

(2) Article 28 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2008/8,

is to be interpreted as meaning that the place of supply of a fictitious service supplied by another person to a taxable person who takes part, under the conditions set forth in Article 28 thereof, in the supply of services to non-taxable persons resident in a Member State, is to be determined on the basis of Article 44 of that directive.

(3) Article 203 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2008/8,

is to be interpreted as meaning that another person on whose behalf a taxable person taking part in the supply of services under the conditions set forth in Article 28 of that directive acts is not liable to pay VAT on the ground that the taxable person has designated that other person, with his consent, as the supplier of services and stated the amount of VAT in the purchase confirmations transmitted electronically to non-taxable end users.

Judgment

Article 203 of Directive 2006/112, as amended by Directive 2008/8

is to be interpreted as meaning that:

where a taxable person established in a Member State has supplied services by electronic means to non-taxable persons established in the territory of the European Union through an app store of a taxable person established in another Member State, with the result that the latter taxable person is treated as if he had received and supplied those services to final customers, the first taxable person is not therefore liable to pay VAT in his Member State of residence within the meaning of Article 203 of the Directive, since he is named, with his consent, as the supplier in the order confirmations sent to final customers and indicates the rate of VAT applicable in his Member State of residence.

Reference to other ECJ Cases

C‑695/20 – Fenix International (2023)
- Relevance: Clarifies the scope of Article 28 VAT Directive, establishing that intermediaries acting in their own name but for the account of others are deemed to have received and supplied the service themselves.
- Used to support: The idea that even if the service provider is named in post-sale confirmations, the intermediary may still be considered the supplier under VAT law.
C‑464/10 – Henfling and Others (2011)
- Relevance: Defines the conditions under which a commission agent is treated as the supplier for VAT purposes.
- Used to support: The need to assess contractual obligations and the intermediary’s role in the transaction.
C‑532/11 – Leichenich (2012)
- Relevance: Interprets the VAT Directive in the context of electronically supplied services.
- Used to support: The applicability of VAT rules to digital platforms and services.
C‑605/12 – Welmory (2014)
- Relevance: Addresses the place of supply for electronically delivered services.
- Used to support: Determining the correct VAT jurisdiction when services are supplied cross-border.
C‑641/21 – Climate Corporation Emissions Trading (2022)
- Relevance: Discusses the rules for determining the place of supply under Title V of the VAT Directive.
- Used to support: The interpretation of Articles 44 and 45 for determining the location of taxable services.
C‑378/21 – Finanzamt Österreich (2022)
- Relevance: Examines the VAT liability under Article 203 when tax is incorrectly stated on an invoice.
- Used to support: Whether Xyrality GmbH is liable for VAT due to its name appearing on order confirmations