Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2016:850
Date: 2016-11-10
Language of the case: Dutch
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Social Policy
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling;Reference for a preliminary ruling - decision unnecessary
Origin: Netherlands

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber), 10 November 2016 1. Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78 — Scope — Taxation scheme providing for a differential tax treatment of vocational training costs incurred by a person depending on that person’s age — Included — Condition (Council Directive 2000/78, Arts 3(1)(b) and 16(a)) 2. Social policy — Equal treatment in employment and occupation — Directive 2000/78 — Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of age — Taxation scheme allowing persons under the age of 30 to deduct in full from their taxable income the costs of vocational training — Restriction of that right for persons having reached that age — Lawfulness — Conditions — Assessment by the national court (Council Directive 2000/78, Art. 6(1)) 1. Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as meaning that a taxation scheme 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. Such a scheme can be regarded as relating to access to vocational training, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of Directive 2000/78. Furthermore, and read in the light of Article 16(a) of that directive, pursuant to which Member States must take the measures necessary to ensure that any laws, regulations and administrative provisions contrary to the principle of equal treatment are abolished, Article 3(1)(b) of that directive must be taken to mean that it also covers a tax provision, adopted with the aim of promoting access to training for young people and, consequently, improving their position on the labour market. (see paras 20-22, operative part 1) 2. Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding a taxation scheme 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 referring court to determine whether that is the case. Indeed, the objective of promoting the position of young people on the labour market in order to promote their vocational integration or ensure their protection can be regarded as legitimate for the purposes of Article 6(1) of Directive 2000/78. Moreover, as regards the appropriateness of a taxation scheme, it is common ground that such a scheme is capable of improving the position of young people on the labour market in that, for them, it amounts to an incentive to pursue vocational training. Finally, as regards the strictly necessary nature of the scheme, it does not appear, account being taken of the broad discretion enjoyed by the Member States and both sides of industry in the field of social policy and employment, that, by adopting such a taxation scheme, the national legislator went beyond what is necessary to attain the objective pursued. (see paras 27, 29, 34, 35, operative part 2)