# C_2006036EN.01002401.xml

| 11.2.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 36/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 36/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen by order of that court of 29 November 2005 in 1. Lucien de Graaf, and 2. Gudula Daniels v Belgian State

(Case C-436/05)

(2006/C 36/49)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen of 29 November 2005, received at the Court Registry on 5 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between 1. Lucien de Graaf, and 2. Gudula Daniels and Belgian State on the following questions:

| 1. | Is Regulation No 1408/71 (1) applicable to a supplementary crisis contribution (ACB) levied by national law that is intended to provide alternative financing of social security? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Regulation No 1408/71 (1) applicable to a supplementary crisis contribution (ACB) levied by national law that is intended to provide alternative financing of social security?

1

| 2. | Under Article 39 EC may Belgium require a natural person, who is resident in Belgium but who carries out (virtually) all his professional activities in another Member State, to pay the supplementary crisis contribution for the financing of social security if the person concerned is not liable to pay contributions to social security in Belgium but in the State of his employment, while all other residents of the State of residence who are subject to the supplementary crisis contribution are liable to pay contributions to social security in Belgium? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Under Article 39 EC may Belgium require a natural person, who is resident in Belgium but who carries out (virtually) all his professional activities in another Member State, to pay the supplementary crisis contribution for the financing of social security if the person concerned is not liable to pay contributions to social security in Belgium but in the State of his employment, while all other residents of the State of residence who are subject to the supplementary crisis contribution are liable to pay contributions to social security in Belgium?

| 3. | Does Article 39 EC permit a Member State to make a distinction whereby residents in the frontier region who work in another Member State are taxed substantially more heavily than residents who do not live in the frontier region and who also work in another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does Article 39 EC permit a Member State to make a distinction whereby residents in the frontier region who work in another Member State are taxed substantially more heavily than residents who do not live in the frontier region and who also work in another Member State?

| 4. | Can a resident of a Member State who performs his professional activities almost completely in another Member State (A) rely on the principle of the ‘most favourable treatment’ where the Member State provides for a more favourable fiscal treatment of other residents who also perform their professional activities almost completely in a third Member State (B)? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Can a resident of a Member State who performs his professional activities almost completely in another Member State (A) rely on the principle of the ‘most favourable treatment’ where the Member State provides for a more favourable fiscal treatment of other residents who also perform their professional activities almost completely in a third Member State (B)?

| 5. | Does Article 39 EC or any other provision preclude a State of residence from refusing a tax deduction of a sickness insurance premium by a resident who performs his professional activities almost completely in another Member State where a similar right of deduction is in fact available both to inhabitants of the State of residence and to those in the State of employment who make no use of the freedom of movement for workers? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Does Article 39 EC or any other provision preclude a State of residence from refusing a tax deduction of a sickness insurance premium by a resident who performs his professional activities almost completely in another Member State where a similar right of deduction is in fact available both to inhabitants of the State of residence and to those in the State of employment who make no use of the freedom of movement for workers?

| 6. | Does Article 39 EC or any other provision preclude the State of residence from making the tax deduction of contributions to sickness insurance conditional inter alia on this sickness insurance being concluded with a local sickness insurance fund recognised by the State of residence, when, according to the legislation of the State of residence, it is legally impossible for inhabitants of the State of residence who use their right of freedom of movement for workers to conclude supplementary sickness insurance with one of those sickness insurance funds? |
| --- | --- |

6.

Does Article 39 EC or any other provision preclude the State of residence from making the tax deduction of contributions to sickness insurance conditional inter alia on this sickness insurance being concluded with a local sickness insurance fund recognised by the State of residence, when, according to the legislation of the State of residence, it is legally impossible for inhabitants of the State of residence who use their right of freedom of movement for workers to conclude supplementary sickness insurance with one of those sickness insurance funds?

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed person and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ English Special Edition (1971)(II) p. 416).

1

---