# C_2023261EN.01001002.xml

| 24.7.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske (Croatia) lodged on 28 April 2023 — E.P. v Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske, Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak

(Case C-277/23, Ministarstvo financija)

(2023/C 261/17)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: E.P.

Other party to the proceedings: Ministarstvo financija Republike Hrvatske, Samostalni sektor za drugostupanjski upravni postupak

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Articles 18, 20, 21 and the second indent of Article 165(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2016 C 202, p. 1) be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a parent loses the right to increase the annual basic income tax allowance for a dependent child who, as a dependent student having exercised his or her right freely to move and reside in another Member State for the purpose of study, has availed himself or herself, on the basis of national implementing acts, of the measures provided for in Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing ‘Erasmus +’: the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 50) for the purpose of facilitating the mobility of students from a Member State with lower or middle average living costs to a Member State with higher average living costs, as determined according to the criteria of the European Commission set out in Article 18(7) of that regulation, when that child receives student mobility support which exceeds a certain fixed limit? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Articles 18, 20, 21 and the second indent of Article 165(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ 2016 C 202, p. 1) be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a parent loses the right to increase the annual basic income tax allowance for a dependent child who, as a dependent student having exercised his or her right freely to move and reside in another Member State for the purpose of study, has availed himself or herself, on the basis of national implementing acts, of the measures provided for in Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing ‘Erasmus +’: the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 50) for the purpose of facilitating the mobility of students from a Member State with lower or middle average living costs to a Member State with higher average living costs, as determined according to the criteria of the European Commission set out in Article 18(7) of that regulation, when that child receives student mobility support which exceeds a certain fixed limit?

| 2. | Should Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2002 L 166, p. 1) be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a parent loses the right to increase the annual basic income tax allowance for a dependent student who, while studying in another Member State, availed himself or herself of the student mobility support provided for in Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing ‘Erasmus+’: the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 50)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Should Article 67 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2002 L 166, p. 1) be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which a parent loses the right to increase the annual basic income tax allowance for a dependent student who, while studying in another Member State, availed himself or herself of the student mobility support provided for in Article 6(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 establishing ‘Erasmus+’: the Union programme for education, training, youth and sport and repealing Decisions No 1719/2006/EC, No 1720/2006/EC and No 1298/2008/EC (OJ 2013 L 347, p. 50)?

---