Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62023CN0039

Case C-39/23, Keva and Others: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 26 January 2023 — Keva, Landskapet Ålands pensionsfond and Kyrkans Centralfond v Skatteverket

OJ C 121, 3.4.2023, p. 7–7 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

3.4.2023   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/7

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 26 January 2023 — Keva, Landskapet Ålands pensionsfond and Kyrkans Centralfond v Skatteverket

(Case C-39/23, Keva and Others)

(2023/C 121/10)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Keva, Landskapet Ålands pensionsfond and Kyrkans Centralfond

Respondent: Skatteverket

Questions referred

1.

Does the fact that dividends paid by domestic companies to foreign public pension institutions are subject to withholding tax, whereas the corresponding dividends are not taxed if they accrue to the own State through its general pension funds, constitute such negative differential treatment that it entails a restriction of the free movement of capital prohibited, in principle, by Article 63 TFEU?

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative, what are the criteria that should be taken into account when assessing whether a foreign public pension institution is in a situation which is objectively comparable to that of the own State and its general pension funds?

3.

Can a possible restriction be regarded as being justified by overriding reasons of public interest?
Top