Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62013CN0512

    Case C-512/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 25 September 2013 — X; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

    IO C 367, 14.12.2013, p. 23–23 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    14.12.2013   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 367/23


    Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 25 September 2013 — X; other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

    (Case C-512/13)

    2013/C 367/40

    Language of the case: Dutch

    Referring court

    Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Appellant in cassation: X

    Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

    Questions referred

    1.

    Can an indirect distinction on the basis of nationality or an impediment to the free movement of workers — requiring justification — be said to exist if the legislation of a Member State allows the tax-free reimbursement of extraterritorial expenses for incoming workers and a worker who, in the period prior to his employment in that Member State, lived outside that Member State at a distance of more than 150 kilometres from the border of that Member State may, without the provision of further proof, be granted tax-free reimbursement of expenses calculated on a flat-rate basis, even if that amount exceeds the extraterritorial expenses actually incurred, whereas, in the case of a worker who, during that period, lived within a shorter distance of that Member State, the extent of the tax-free reimbursement is limited to the demonstrable actual amount of the extraterritorial expenses?

    2.

    If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: is the relevant Netherlands rule, as laid down in the 1965 Uitvoeringsbesluit loonbelasting (Implementing Decision concerning wages tax), based on overriding reasons in the public interest?

    3.

    If Question 2 is also to be answered in the affirmative: does the 150-kilometre criterion in that rule go further than is necessary to attain the objective pursued?


    Top