# C_2013367EN.01002302.xml

| 14.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

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

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant in cassation: X

Appellant in cassation:

Other party: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Other party:

Questions referred

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? |
| --- | --- |

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? |
| --- | --- |

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? |
| --- | --- |

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?

---