Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62015CN0548

    Case C-548/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 October 2015 — J.J. de Lange v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

    OJ C 38, 1.2.2016, p. 21–22 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    1.2.2016   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 38/21

    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 21 October 2015 — J.J. de Lange v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

    (Case C-548/15)

    (2016/C 038/31)

    Language of the case: Dutch

    Referring court

    Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: J.J. de Lange

    Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

    Questions referred

    1.

    Must Article 3 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation be interpreted as meaning that that provision applies to a concession contained in tax legislation on the basis of which study costs may, under certain conditions, be deducted from the taxable income?

    In the event that the Court answers the first question referred in the negative:

    2.

    Must the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of age, as a general principle of EU law, be applied to a tax concession on the basis of which training expenditure is only deductible under certain circumstances, even when that concession falls outside the material scope of Directive 2000/78/EC and when that arrangement does not implement EU law?

    If the answer to the first or the second question referred is in the affirmative:

    3.

    (a)

    Can differences in treatment which are contrary to the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of age as a general principle of EU law be justified in a way provided for in Article 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC?

    (b)

    If not, what criteria apply to the application of that principle or to the justification of a distinction based on age?

    4.

    (a)

    Should Article 6 of Directive 2000/78/EC and/or the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of age be interpreted as justifying a difference in treatment on the grounds of age if the ground for that difference in treatment only relates to some of the cases affected by that distinction?

    (b)

    Can a distinction based on age be justified by the view of the legislator that beyond a certain age a tax concession need not be available because it is the ‘personal responsibility’ of the person claiming it to achieve the objective pursued by the concession?

    (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.

    Top