7.1.2019   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/13


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (Belgium) lodged on 10 October 2018 — Fonds du logement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale SCRL v Institut des Comptes nationaux (ICN)

(Case C-632/18)

(2019/C 4/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Société coopérative à responsabilité limitée ‘Fonds du logement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale’

Opposing party: Institut des Comptes nationaux (ICN)

Questions referred

1.

Are paragraphs 2.22, 2.23, 2.27, 2.28 and 20.33 of Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts [in the European Union] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a separate institutional entity placed under government control must be regarded as being non-market and thus falling within the general government sector where it has the characteristics of a captive financial institution, there being no need to examine its risk exposure?

2.

Can an entity operating under government control be regarded as being a captive financial institution within the meaning of paragraphs 2.21 to 2.23, 2.27 and 2.28 of Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on the European system of national and regional accounts [in the European Union]:

(a)

on the ground that the regulation of its activity by the government in question removes from it control over its assets, even though it is afforded the capacity to decide to grant the mortgage loans which it provides, their duration, their amount and some of their conditions, whilst at the same time the government determines other factors, and in particular the interest rate applied to the loans;

(b)

on the ground that, inter alia, the guarantee given to it by government in respect of the loans taken out by it removes from it control over its liabilities, without examining the purpose and the effects of such a guarantee in the light of its features in the present case and of the underlying economic reality?


(1)  OJ 2013 L 174, p. 1.