Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2004:138
Date: 2004-03-11
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Right of establishment
Concepts: General
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Summary of the Judgment Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation – Taxation of unrealised capital gains where tax residence transferred to another Member State – Not permissible – Justification – None (EC Treaty, Art. 52 (now, after amendment, Art. 43 EC)) The principle of freedom of establishment laid down by Article 52 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from establishing, in order to prevent a risk of tax avoidance, a mechanism for taxing latent, i.e. not yet realised, increases in value of company shares, where a taxpayer transfers his tax residence outside that State. A taxpayer wishing to transfer his tax residence in exercise of the right guaranteed to him by that provision is subjected to disadvantageous treatment in comparison with a person who maintains his residence in that State where he becomes liable, simply by reason of such a transfer, to tax on income which has not yet been realised and which he therefore does not have, whereas, if he remained in that State, increases in value would become taxable only when, and to the extent that, they were actually realised. That difference in treatment cannot be justified by the aim of preventing tax avoidance, since tax avoidance or evasion cannot be inferred generally from the fact that the tax residence of a physical person has been transferred to another Member State. (see paras 38, 46, 50-51, 58, 69, operative part)