# C_2020297EN.01002601.xml

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/26

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg (Belgium) lodged on 5 June 2020 — BJ v État belge

(Case C-241/20)

(2020/C 297/35)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BJ

Defendant: État belge

Questions referred

| 1. | Does Article 45 TFEU preclude rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings — irrespective of whether or not they are laid down in a convention for the avoidance of double taxation — whereby a taxpayer forfeits, in the calculation of the income tax payable by him in his State of residence, part of the tax-free amount of that income and of his other personal tax advantages (such as a tax reduction for long-term savings, that is to say, premiums paid under an individual life insurance contract, and a tax reduction for costs incurred in energy savings) because, during the year in question, he also received income in another Member State which was taxed in that State? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does Article 45 TFEU preclude rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings — irrespective of whether or not they are laid down in a convention for the avoidance of double taxation — whereby a taxpayer forfeits, in the calculation of the income tax payable by him in his State of residence, part of the tax-free amount of that income and of his other personal tax advantages (such as a tax reduction for long-term savings, that is to say, premiums paid under an individual life insurance contract, and a tax reduction for costs incurred in energy savings) because, during the year in question, he also received income in another Member State which was taxed in that State?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does that answer remain in the affirmative if the income received by the taxpayer in his State of residence is neither quantitatively nor proportionately significant but that State is nevertheless in a position to grant him those tax advantages? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, does that answer remain in the affirmative if the income received by the taxpayer in his State of residence is neither quantitatively nor proportionately significant but that State is nevertheless in a position to grant him those tax advantages?

| 3. | If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, does that answer remain in the affirmative if, under a Convention for the avoidance of double taxation between the State of residence and the other State, the taxpayer has enjoyed in that other State, in respect of income taxable in that other State, personal tax advantages under the tax legislation of that other State but those tax advantages do not include certain tax advantages to which the taxpayer is in principle entitled in the State of residence? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, does that answer remain in the affirmative if, under a Convention for the avoidance of double taxation between the State of residence and the other State, the taxpayer has enjoyed in that other State, in respect of income taxable in that other State, personal tax advantages under the tax legislation of that other State but those tax advantages do not include certain tax advantages to which the taxpayer is in principle entitled in the State of residence?

| 4. | If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, does that answer remain in the affirmative if, notwithstanding the latter difference, the taxpayer obtains in that other State a tax reduction in an amount at least equivalent to that which he has lost in his State of residence? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to the third question is in the affirmative, does that answer remain in the affirmative if, notwithstanding the latter difference, the taxpayer obtains in that other State a tax reduction in an amount at least equivalent to that which he has lost in his State of residence?

| 5. | Are the answers to the questions the same in the light of Articles 63(1) and 65(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in relation to rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings — irrespective of whether or not they are laid down in a convention for the avoidance of double taxation — whereby a taxpayer forfeits, in the calculation of the income tax payable by him in his State of residence, part of the tax-free amount of that income and of his other personal tax advantages (such as a tax reduction for long-term savings, that is to say premiums paid under an individual life insurance contract, and a tax reduction for costs incurred in energy savings) because, during the year in question, he also received rental income in respect of a property owned by him in another Member State which was taxed in that State? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Are the answers to the questions the same in the light of Articles 63(1) and 65(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union in relation to rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings — irrespective of whether or not they are laid down in a convention for the avoidance of double taxation — whereby a taxpayer forfeits, in the calculation of the income tax payable by him in his State of residence, part of the tax-free amount of that income and of his other personal tax advantages (such as a tax reduction for long-term savings, that is to say premiums paid under an individual life insurance contract, and a tax reduction for costs incurred in energy savings) because, during the year in question, he also received rental income in respect of a property owned by him in another Member State which was taxed in that State?

---