# C_2017014EN.01001501.xml

| 16.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 14/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 14/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 November 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden — Netherlands) — J.J. de Lange v Staatssecretaris van Finaciën

(Case C-548/15) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Principles of equal treatment and of non-discrimination on grounds of age - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Articles 2, 3 and 6 - Scope - Difference in treatment on grounds of age - National legislation capping deductions of training costs incurred after a certain age - Access to vocational training))

(2017/C 014/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J.J. de Lange

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Finaciën

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(1)(b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that a taxation scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the tax treatment of vocational training costs incurred by a person differs depending on his age, comes within the material scope of that directive to the extent to which the scheme is designed to improve access to training for young people. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(1)(b) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that a taxation scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that the tax treatment of vocational training costs incurred by a person differs depending on his age, comes within the material scope of that directive to the extent to which the scheme is designed to improve access to training for young people.

| 2. | Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding a taxation scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows persons who have not yet reached the age of 30 to deduct in full, under certain conditions, vocational training costs from their taxable income, whereas that right to deduct is restricted in the case of persons who have reached that age, in so far as, first, that scheme is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate objective relating to employment and labour market policy and, second, the means of attaining that objective are appropriate and necessary. It is for the national court to determine whether that is the case in the main proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 must be interpreted as not precluding a taxation scheme, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which allows persons who have not yet reached the age of 30 to deduct in full, under certain conditions, vocational training costs from their taxable income, whereas that right to deduct is restricted in the case of persons who have reached that age, in so far as, first, that scheme is objectively and reasonably justified by a legitimate objective relating to employment and labour market policy and, second, the means of attaining that objective are appropriate and necessary. It is for the national court to determine whether that is the case in the main proceedings.

---

(1)  
  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

---