Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62017CN0045

    Case C-45/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 30 January 2017 — Frédéric Jahin v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

    OJ C 121, 18.4.2017, p. 15–15 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    18.4.2017   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 121/15


    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 30 January 2017 — Frédéric Jahin v Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

    (Case C-45/17)

    (2017/C 121/21)

    Language of the case: French

    Referring court

    Conseil d’État

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Frédéric Jahin

    Defendants: Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances, Ministre des Affaires sociales et de la Santé

    Questions referred

    Must Articles 63, 64 and 65 [TFEU] be interpreted as meaning that:

    1)

    the fact that a person insured under a social security scheme in a third country outside the European Union, other than members of the European Economic Area or Switzerland, is subject to contributions on income from assets provided for under French legislation and falling within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) of 29 April 2004, in the same way as persons insured under the social security scheme in France, whereas a person insured under the social security scheme of a Member State other than France cannot be subject to those contributions, taking into account the provisions of that regulation, constitutes a restriction on the movement of capital from and to third countries, which is in principle prohibited by Article 63 [TFEU];

    2)

    If that first question is answered in the affirmative, can that restriction on the movement of capital, which arises as a combined result of French legislation, which imposes the disputed contributions on all recipients of certain income from assets, without in itself making any distinction as to the place in which they are insured under a social security scheme, and a European Union act of secondary legislation, be regarded as compatible with the requirements of the said article of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in particular:

    in light of Article 64(1) [TFEU], for the movement of capital falling within the scope of that paragraph, on the grounds that the restriction arises due to the application of the principle that the legislation of a single Member State is to apply, as provided in Article 11 of the Regulation [(EC) No 883/2004] of 29 April 2004, introduced into EU law by Article 13 of Regulation [(EEC) No 1408/71] of 14 June 1971, in other words, on a date prior to 31 December 1993, even though the contributions on income from assets in question were established or made applicable after 31 December 1993;

    in light of Article 65(1) [TFEU], on the grounds that the French tax legislation, when applied in a way compliant with Regulation [(EC) No 883/2004] of 29 April 2004, creates a distinction between taxable persons whose situations differ in relation to the criterion for being insured under a social security scheme;

    in light of the existence of overriding reasons in the public interest to justify a restriction on the free circulation of capital, derived from the fact that the provisions that might be regarded as restricting the movement of capital from or to a third country correspond to the aim of Regulation [(EC) No 883/2004] of 29 April 2004 of allowing free movement of workers within the European Union?


    (1)  Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).


    Top