Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62016CN0345

    Case C-345/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 22 June 2016 — Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz v Belgian State

    OJ C 326, 5.9.2016, p. 14–15 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    5.9.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 326/14


    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège (Belgium) lodged on 22 June 2016 — Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz v Belgian State

    (Case C-345/16)

    (2016/C 326/25)

    Language of the case: French

    Referring court

    Tribunal de première instance de Liège

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicants: Jean Jacob, Dominique Lennertz

    Defendant: Belgian State

    Question referred

    Is it contrary to Article 39 of the Treaty on European Union for the Belgian tax system, at Article 155 of the CIR/92 and regardless of whether Circular No Ci.RH.331/575.420 of 12 March 2008 is applied, to have the effect that Mr Jacob’s Luxembourg pensions, exempted from tax pursuant to Article 18 of the Convention concluded between Belgium and Luxembourg for the avoidance of double taxation, are taken into account for the purposes of calculating the tax payable in Belgium and used as the basis of assessment for the grant of tax advantages provided for under the CIR 92, and that those advantages, such as the tax-free allowance, long-term savings, costs paid with service vouchers, costs incurred in saving energy in the home, costs incurred in protecting the home against theft or fire, and charitable donations made by the applicant, are reduced or granted to a lesser extent than if both the applicants had income earned in Belgium and if Ms Lennertz, and not Mr Jacob, had received pensions only from Belgium?


    Top