Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2026:188
Date: 2026-03-12
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary C-150/25 – 1 
Case C-150/25 [Marhaux] i 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
20 February 2025 
Referring court: 
Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg (Belgium) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
19 February 2025 
Applicant: 
BX 
Defendant: 
État belge 
  
1. Subject matter of the main proceedings: 
Tax dispute concerning an action to annul tax assessment notices issued in respect 
of BX, concerning personal income tax for the 2020 and 2021 tax years, at first 
instance before the referring court. 
2. Type and subject matter of the request for a preliminary ruling:  
Reference for an interpretation of Article 45 TFEU (free movement of workers) 
 
i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-150/25 
 
2 
3. Legal framework: 
Convention entre la France et la Belgique tendant à éviter les doubles 
impositions et à établir des règles d’assistance administrative et juridique 
réciproque en matière d’impôts sur les revenus (Convention between France 
and Belgium for the avoidance of double taxation and the establishment of 
rules of mutual administrative and legal assistance in the field of income tax), 
signed in Brussels on 10 March 1964 
1 Article 25, as amended by the amending agreement signed in Brussels on 
8 February 1999, provides: 
‘1. … 
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1, natural persons who are 
residents of a Contracting State and are in salaried employment in the other 
Contracting State shall not be subjected in that other State, in respect of the 
income from that employment, to any taxation or connected obligation that is 
more burdensome than those to which natural persons who are residents of that 
other State and are in salaried employment in that State are or may be subjected. 
Nevertheless, personal deductions, allowances and tax reductions based on family 
circumstances or responsibilities that are granted by that other State to its own 
residents shall be reduced in proportion to the ratio which the earnings originating 
from that other State bear to the total earned income, irrespective of that income’s 
origin, that that resident receives.’ 
2 On the date of this order for reference, the new Convention between France and 
Belgium, which was signed in Brussels on 9 November 2021, had not yet entered 
into force. 
National provisions at issue 
Code général des impôts français (French General Tax Code; ‘the CGI’) 
3 Article 156, which applies to residents, provides: 
‘Income tax shall be assessed on the total annual net income available to each tax 
household. … after deduction of: 
… maintenance payments’ 
4 Article 197A, in the version applicable since 1 January 2018, which applies to 
non-residents, provides: 
‘b. By derogation from Article 164A, for the calculation of the rate of French tax 
on the total worldwide income provided for in [point] (a) of the present article, the 
maintenance payments … may be deducted subject to the same conditions and 
MARHAUX 
 
3 
limits, where those payments are taxable in the hands of their beneficiary in 
France and taking them into account is not such as to reduce the tax payable by 
the taxpayer in his or her State of residence’. 
4. Case-law of the Court of Justice cited directly or indirectly: 
5 For the sake of completeness, besides the judgments expressly cited below, the 
reasoning of this order for reference should also be understood to refer to the 
following judgments: 
judgment of 7 July 1988, Stanton and L’Étoile 1905, 143/87, EU:C:1988:378; 
judgment of 7 March 1991, Masgio, C-10/90, EU:C:1991:107; 
judgment of 7 July 1992, Singh, C-370/90, EU:C:1992:296; 
judgment of 23 February 1994, Scholz, C-419/92, EU:C:1994:62; 
judgment of 26 January 1999, Terhoeve, C-18/95, EU:C:1999:22; 
judgment of 27 January 2000, Graf, C-190/98, EU:C:2000:49; 
judgment of 16 May 2000, Zurstrassen, C-87/99, EU:C:2000:251; 
judgment of 15 June 2000, Sehrer, C-302/98, EU:C:2000:322; 
judgment of 10 May 2012, Commission v Estonia, C-39/10, EU:C:2012:282; 
judgment of 24 February 2015, Sopora, C-512/13, EU:C:2015:108; 
judgment of 14 March 2019, Jacob and Lennertz, C-174/18, EU:C:2019:205. 
5. Succinct presentation of the facts: 
6 BX is resident in Belgium and received earned income mainly in Belgium and 
France and to a lesser extent in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. He made 
maintenance payments to his ex-wife and their daughter, who are also resident in 
Belgium. 
7 The income originating in France and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is 
exempted, under international agreements, from tax in Belgium, with the method 
of exemption with progression applying. Furthermore, the Belgian tax 
administration apportioned the deduction of maintenance payments as between the 
Belgian, French and Luxembourgish income, thus refusing to deduct the full 
amount of the maintenance payments from the Belgian income. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-150/25 
 
4 
8 In addition, in France, BX was unable to deduct the maintenance payments made 
to his ex-wife and their daughter from his French income, because his ex-wife and 
his daughter are not resident in France and thus not subject to taxation there. 
9 BX objects to being deprived of some the advantages arising from his personal 
and family circumstances and submits that that constitutes an interference with the 
freedom of movement guaranteed to workers by the Treaty. 
10 By application of 16 January 2023, BX brought the matter before the tribunal de 
première instance du Luxembourg, division de Marche-en-Famenne (Court of 
First Instance, Luxembourg, Marche-en-Famenne division, Belgium). 
6. The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings: 
BX 
11 BX submits that Belgium takes income which is exempted by the convention into 
account for the purpose of determining the tax rate on taxable income. The 
method of exemption with progression applies, which means that the tax is 
calculated on the taxpayer’s total income, including exempt foreign income. Next, 
the part of the tax relating to the proportion which the exempt foreign income 
bears to the total income is deducted from the tax calculated on the total income. It 
is precisely at that second stage that the allowances linked to the personal and 
family circumstances are proportionally attributed to the foreign income exempted 
by the convention. 
12 That method of calculation results in the maintenance payments not being fully 
deducted, unless that is corrected in the other States. BX submits that the fact that 
he is deprived in that way of the ability to deduct the full amount of the 
maintenance payments he has made constitutes an interference with his freedom 
of movement. 
13 As the Court of Justice has held, ‘even if, according to their wording, the rules on 
freedom of movement for workers are intended, in particular, to secure the benefit 
of national treatment in the host State, they also preclude the State of origin from 
obstructing the freedom of one of its nationals to accept and pursue employment 
in another Member State’ (judgment of 12 December 2002, de Groot, C-385/00, 
EU:C:2002:750, paragraph 79). 
14 BX claims that ‘income received in the territory of a Member State by a non-
resident is in most cases only a part of his total income, which is concentrated at 
his place of residence. Moreover, a non-resident’s personal ability to pay tax, 
determined by reference to his aggregate income and his personal and family 
circumstances, is more easy to assess at the place where his personal and financial 
interests are centred. In general, that is the place where he has his usual abode. 
Accordingly, international tax law, and in particular the Model Double Taxation 
Treaty of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 
MARHAUX 
 
5 
recognises that in principle the overall taxation of taxpayers, taking account of 
their personal and family circumstances, is a matter for the State of residence’ 
(judgment of 14 February 1995, Schumacker, C-279/93, EU:C:1995:31, 
paragraph 32). 
15 ‘It is a matter for the State of residence, in principle, to grant the taxpayer all the 
tax advantages relating to his personal and family circumstances, because that 
State is, [as a rule], best placed to assess the taxpayer’s personal ability to pay tax, 
since that is where his personal and financial interests are centred’ (judgment of 
22 June 2017, Bechtel, C-20/16, EU:C:2017:488, paragraph 55 and the case-law 
cited). 
16 In the present case, BX submits that having regard to the level of income 
originating in Belgium, it is for Belgium, as the State of residence, to grant him 
the advantages resulting from taking account of his total income and his personal 
and family circumstances. ‘The Member State of employment is required to take 
into account personal and family circumstances only where the taxpayer derives 
almost all or all of his taxable income from employment in that State and where 
he has no significant income in his Member State of residence, so that the latter is 
not in a position to grant him the advantages resulting from taking account of his 
personal and family circumstances’ (judgment of 22 June 2017, Bechtel, C-20/16, 
EU:C:2017:488, paragraph 56 and the case-law cited). 
17 In certain cases, BX submits, the State of residence can nevertheless be released 
under a convention from its obligation to take into account in full the personal and 
family circumstances of taxpayers residing in its territory who work partially 
abroad. 
18 In relation to France, Article 25 of the Convention between France and Belgium 
enshrines the principle of non-discrimination with regard to taxation in France of 
income generated by non-residents from salaried employment in France and with 
regard to personal deductions, allowances and tax reductions based on family 
circumstances or responsibilities, up to the level of earnings originating in France. 
19 BX submits, however, that Article 25 of the Convention between France and 
Belgium is not a provision that adjusts the obligation to take into account the 
personal and family circumstances of the taxpayer as between the State of 
residence and the State of employment. That is clear from its wording, which does 
not as such release the State of residence (Belgium) from the obligation to take 
into account the full personal and family circumstances of a taxpayer who is 
resident in that State (Belgium) and who works partially in the other State 
(France). It is a non-discrimination provision which cannot be viewed as being 
akin to a provision of a convention allocating responsibility for granting tax 
advantages based on the personal and family circumstances of the taxpayer. That 
non-discrimination provision is not concerned with what happens to the tax 
advantages in the State of residence, and thus cannot be viewed as being akin to a 
provision adjusting the obligations as between the Contracting States. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-150/25 
 
6 
20 In practice, France does not take account of the personal and family circumstances 
of the applicant in any way. Article 197A(b) of the CGI provides that ‘the 
maintenance payments provided for … may be deducted subject to the same 
conditions and limits, where those payments are taxable in the hands of their 
beneficiary in France …’. 
21 The beneficiaries of the maintenance payments made by BX are his ex-wife and 
their daughter, who were both resident in Belgium at the relevant time. Therefore, 
the beneficiaries of those payments are not subject to taxation in France. 
22 As the conditions for deduction of maintenance payments are not satisfied, France 
does not take BX’s personal and family circumstances into account. 
23 As regards the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, as BX is not taxable on more than 
50% of his earned income there, he has not received the benefit of tax advantages 
linked to his personal and family circumstances. 
24 It follows from the foregoing that neither France nor the Grand Duchy of 
Luxembourg grant BX, a Belgian resident, personal or family deductions linked to 
the maintenance payments like those granted to taxpayers who are resident in the 
State of activity. 
25 BX submits that the État belge (Belgian State) has not been released from its 
obligation to take into account his personal and family circumstances and, as he 
has not actually received the benefit of personal advantages either in France or in 
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, it is incumbent on Belgium to grant him all the 
advantages linked to his personal and family circumstances given that, as the State 
of residence, it is the State that is best placed to do so. 
26 Lastly, the proportional attribution of maintenance payments to exempted income 
is not necessary in order to safeguard the cohesion of the method of exemption 
with progression, as it would have to be in order to justify the restriction on his 
freedom of movement under the case-law of the Court (judgments of 28 January 
1992, Bachmann, C-204/90, EU:C:1992:35, paragraph 28 et al, judgment of 
28 January 1992, Commission v Belgium, C-300/90, EU:C:1992:37, 
paragraph 21), since there is no direct link between the method of exemption with 
progression and the proportional attribution of personal allowances. 
27 In conclusion, BX submits that his personal and family circumstances have not 
been fully taken into consideration anywhere in the world. He has not received 
advantages in France or in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. It is therefore 
incumbent on Belgium to grant him an additional tax advantage, up to the level of 
his income originating in France and Luxembourg, so that his personal and family 
circumstances are duly taken into account. 
MARHAUX 
 
7 
Belgian State 
28 The Belgian State contends that there are similarities between the present case and 
the case which gave rise to the judgment of 12 December 2002, de Groot 
(C-385/00, EU:C:2002:750), in which the Court held that the Netherlands was 
obstructing the free movement of workers by limiting the personal and family 
allowances available to a resident of the Netherlands receiving exempt foreign 
income, in proportion to his taxable Netherlands income. 
29 It claims, however, that the agreements for the avoidance of double taxation 
concluded by the Netherlands with the countries in which the person concerned 
was receiving earned income in that case (Germany, France and the United 
Kingdom) did not require those States where the employment took place to take 
account, proportionally, of the individual’s family and personal circumstances. 
30 In the judgment of 12 December 2002, de Groot (C-385/00, EU:C:2002:750), the 
Court of Justice stated that ‘it is a matter for the State of residence, in principle, to 
grant the taxpayer all the tax allowances relating to his personal and family 
circumstances because that State is best placed to assess the taxpayer’s personal 
ability to pay tax, since that is where his personal and financial interests are 
centred’ (paragraph 90 and the case-law cited). It also stated that ‘the Member 
States are … free, in the absence of unifying or harmonising measures adopted in 
the [European Union], to alter, by way of bilateral or multilateral agreements for 
the avoidance of double taxation, that correlation between the total income of 
residents and residents’ general personal and family circumstances to be taken 
into account by the State of residence. The State of residence can therefore be 
released by way of an international agreement from its obligation to take into 
account in full the personal and family situation of taxpayers residing in its 
territory who work partially abroad’ (paragraph 99). 
31 As regards France, the Belgian State claims that Article 25 of the Convention 
between France and Belgium comprises not only the general provision prohibiting 
discrimination on grounds of nationality, corresponding to Article 24(1) of the 
OECD Model Tax Convention, but also a special provision prohibiting 
discrimination between a resident and a non-resident in certain circumstances 
(Article 25(2)). 
32 According to the Belgian State, it follows that when a Belgian resident is in paid 
employment in France (as in the present case), that provision enables him or her to 
obtain, in France, the French tax advantage linked to maintenance payments, in 
proportion to his French income, similar to the tax advantage granted to residents 
of France by French tax legislation. 
33 That provision thus grants natural persons resident in one Contracting State the 
same tax deductions that are granted to residents of the other Contracting State by 
reason of their family circumstances or responsibilities. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-150/25 
 
8 
34 Overall, the system established by the convention, under those ‘extended’ non-
discrimination provisions, guarantees the taxpayer that his or her personal and 
family circumstances will be taken into account by the State of employment in the 
same way that it takes into account the personal and family circumstances of its 
own residents. In that way, it appears that those provisions ensure compliance 
with Article 45 TFEU. 
35 The Belgian State submits that the ‘awkward situation’ in which BX finds himself 
arises from the fact that, in practice, France does not take into account his personal 
and family circumstances and applies Article 197A of the CGI, under which a 
non-resident of France cannot deduct maintenance payments where those 
payments have not been taxed in France. Conversely, for residents of France, 
Article 156 of the CGI provides that maintenance payments may be deducted 
without making such deduction conditional on the beneficiaries also being 
residents of France. 
36 Thus, unlike a resident of France, a non-resident may only deduct the maintenance 
payments he or she makes if the beneficiary is subject to French tax on those 
payments. 
37 However, the Belgian State submits that France, like Belgium, is bound by 
Article 25(2) of the Convention between France and Belgium, and that that 
provision of international law takes precedence over French domestic legislation. 
Furthermore, that provision has direct effect. 
38 In the reverse situation, moreover, Belgium gives effect to that provision with 
regard to the deduction of maintenance payments, since point C9 of the circular of 
26 October 2000, which provides commentary on the amending agreement signed 
in Brussels on 8 February 1999, states in that regard that: 
‘Maintenance payments made by a resident of France to a non-resident of 
Belgium are to be deductible in the proportion to the ratio that the income covered 
by this amending agreement bears to the total earned income received by that 
resident of France. …’ 
39 Under Article 25(2) of the Convention between France and Belgium, France 
cannot refuse the benefit of the personal deductions, allowances and tax 
reductions based on family circumstances or responsibilities to an employee 
resident in Belgium, thereby taxing non-residents more heavily when such 
deductions are granted to residents of France (under Article 156 of the CGI). 
40 Article 25(2) of the Convention between France and Belgium, which has direct 
effect, entails that, in the event of a conflict with a provision of domestic law, such 
as Article 197A of the CGI, the provision of domestic law is to be disregarded. 
41 The Belgian State submits that it is incumbent on both States to honour the 
commitments undertaken in bilateral conventions. 
MARHAUX 
 
9 
7. Assessment of the court: 
42 BX’s situation is special inasmuch as he receives income both in his State of 
residence, where it is taxable, and in two States, in the present case the Grand 
Duchy of Luxembourg and France, where it is taxable while being exempt from 
Belgian tax in line with the method of exemption with progression, in accordance 
with the conventions for the avoidance of double taxation between, first, the 
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Belgium, and second, France and Belgium. 
Income originating from the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg 
43 The referring court notes that the Court of Justice has held that: 
‘In the present case, it should be noted that it is not apparent from the provisions 
of the Belgium-Luxembourg Tax Convention that, under that convention, the 
Kingdom of Belgium is released from its obligation to take into account in full the 
personal and family circumstances of taxpayers residing in its territory who work 
partially in Luxembourg. 
Article 24(4)(a) of that convention provides for the personal and family 
circumstances of the taxpayer concerned to be taken into account solely for the 
purposes of determining the average rate of tax to be applied to his or her taxable 
income in Luxembourg, without releasing the Kingdom of Belgium from that 
obligation’ (judgment of 15 July 2021, État belge (Loss of tax advantages in the 
Member State of residence), C-241/20, EU:C:2021:605, paragraphs 47 and 48). 
44 Belgium is thus indisputably obliged to take into account the personal and family 
circumstances of BX, in the present case with regard to the deduction of 
maintenance payments, when calculating the Belgian tax, without putting him at a 
disadvantage. 
45 Furthermore, the Belgian State does not dispute that, in the present case, as BX is 
not subject to taxation in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg on more than 50% of 
his earned income, he did not receive the benefit, in the Grand Duchy of 
Luxembourg, of tax advantages linked to his personal and family circumstances, 
consisting in taking account of maintenance payments made to his ex-wife and 
their daughter. 
46 The court therefore considers that BX correctly submits that the Belgian tax 
administration should grant him an additional tax advantage, when calculating the 
tax, up to the limit of the income originating in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, 
which was EUR 24 000.00 in the 2020 tax year and EUR 33 600.00 in the 2021 
tax year. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-150/25 
 
10 
Income originating from France 
47 BX received significant and nearly equal income in France and in Belgium: for 
the 2020 tax year, EUR 104 875.00 in Belgium and EUR 64 910.27 in France, and 
for the 2021 tax year, EUR 88 713.09 in Belgium and EUR 76 125.88 in France. 
48 The court notes that the scheme of the Convention between France and Belgium 
differs from that of the Convention between Luxembourg and Belgium. 
49 Article 25 of the Convention between France and Belgium thus provides, in 
respect of non-resident natural persons, just as in respect of resident natural 
persons, for ‘personal deductions, allowances and tax reductions based on family 
circumstances or responsibilities’ to be granted, but only ‘in proportion to the ratio 
which the earnings originating from that other State bear to the total earned 
income, irrespective of that income’s origin, that that resident receives’ (the pro 
rata rule). 
50 The Cour constitutionnelle (Constitutional Court, Belgium) has held in that regard 
that ‘the Belgian tax legislature could therefore, by approving the amending 
agreement of 8 February 1999 (which established Article 25 in its current form), 
decide to grant non-residents covered by the convention for the avoidance of 
double taxation concluded between France and Belgium the benefit of personal 
deductions, allowances and tax reductions based on the personal and family 
circumstances of the taxpayer, but only in accordance with the pro rata rule, which 
is to be applied reciprocally’ (judgment No 92/2019 of 6 June 2019, paragraph 
B.19.5). 
51 This is why Belgian legislation allows the deduction, subject to certain conditions, 
of maintenance payments made by a taxpayer who is not resident in Belgium 
(Article 242 of CIR 92). 
52 However, among those conditions, the condition that the non-resident must 
receive more than 75% of his or her income in Belgium in order to be able to 
deduct maintenance payments from that income was criticised in infringement 
proceedings on the ground, in particular, that ‘since, in the present case, the 
condition laid down by Article 242(1) of the CIR 92, which applies only to non-
resident taxpayers, is general in nature and does not enable account to be taken of 
the personal and family circumstances of the taxpayers concerned, the right to 
deduct maintenance payments being denied, in any event, to non-resident 
taxpayers receiving less than 75% of their earned income in Belgium, including 
where they are unable to benefit from that deduction in their Member State of 
residence because of a low level of taxable income in that State, that condition is 
incompatible with the requirements of Article 45 TFEU’ (judgment of 10 March 
2022, Commission v Belgium (Deduction of maintenance payments), C-60/21, not 
published, EU:C:2022:172, paragraph 32). 
53 Like Belgian law, French law contains provisions intended to enable non-residents 
receiving income taxable in France to deduct maintenance payments, but only 
MARHAUX 
 
11 
‘where those payments are taxable in the hands of their beneficiary in France’ 
(Article 197A of the CGI). 
54 BX cannot have the benefit of France taking into account the maintenance 
payments he makes to his ex-wife and their daughter, who – as is undisputed – are 
not subject to taxation in France in respect of those payments. 
55 The issue arises as to whether the condition laid down by Article 197A of the 
CGI, requiring maintenance payments to be taxable in the hands of their 
beneficiary in France if their being taken into account in the taxation of the non-
resident person paying them is to be allowed, is consistent with EU law given that 
a non-resident taxpayer is treated differently depending on whether the 
beneficiaries are resident in France or in another EU Member State. 
56 Various issues of consistency with EU law arise at that stage. 
57 The Member States are free, ‘in the absence of unifying or harmonising measures 
adopted in the [European Union], to alter, by way of bilateral or multilateral 
agreements for the avoidance of double taxation, that correlation between the total 
income of residents and residents’ general personal and family circumstances to 
be taken into account by the State of residence’, such that the State of residence 
can ‘be released by way of an international agreement from its obligation to take 
into account in full the personal and family situation of taxpayers residing in its 
territory who work partially abroad’ (judgment of 12 December 2002, de Groot, 
C-385/00, EU:C:2002:750, paragraph 99). 
58 At first glance, that is what the Belgian and French States have done in adopting, 
first, Article 25 of the Convention between France and Belgium, and, second, 
Article 242 of CIR 92 (Belgium) and Article 197A of the CGI (France). 
59 A rule such as that contained in Article 25 of the Convention between France and 
Belgium does not interfere with the free movement of persons. On the contrary, 
that provision is intended to ensure non-discrimination by guaranteeing to non-
residents – beyond what is provided for by Article 24 of the OECD model – the 
benefit, in the State of employment, of personal deductions, allowances and tax 
reductions based on personal or family circumstances, but only ‘in proportion to 
the ratio which the earnings originating from that other State bear to the total 
earned income [of those persons], irrespective of that income’s origin’. 
60 The Court of Justice considers that ‘the freedom of the Member States, in the 
absence of unifying or harmonising measures adopted under EU law, to allocate 
among themselves their powers to impose taxes, in particular to avoid the 
accumulation of tax advantages, must be reconciled with the necessity that 
taxpayers of the Member States concerned are assured that, ultimately, all their 
personal and family circumstances will be duly taken into account, irrespective of 
how the Member States concerned have allocated that obligation amongst 
themselves’ (judgment of 9 February 2017, X, C-283/15, EU:C:2017:102, 
paragraph 47). 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-150/25 
 
12 
61 It appears that in principle, a non-discrimination rule contained in an international 
agreement may be used by the two Contracting States to provide for maintenance 
payments to be deducted ‘in proportion’ to the income that is taxable in their 
respective jurisdictions. 
62 It appears, nevertheless, that, in their legislation, the two States subject the 
deduction of maintenance payments to specific conditions, and that in relation to 
BX, those conditions, and specifically the condition requiring the payments to be 
taxable in the hands of their beneficiary in France, result in the payments not 
being deducted from the income on which he is subject to French tax as a non-
resident. 
63 It may be recalled that ‘the mechanisms used to eliminate double taxation or the 
national tax systems which have the effect of eliminating or alleviating double 
taxation must permit the taxpayers in the [Member] States concerned to be certain 
that, as the end result, all their personal and family circumstances will be duly 
taken into account, irrespective of how those Member States have allocated that 
obligation amongst themselves, in order not to give rise to inequality of treatment 
which is incompatible with the Treaty provisions on the freedom of movement for 
workers and in no way results from the disparities between the national tax laws’ 
(judgments of 12 December 2002, de Groot, C-385/00, EU:C:2002:750, 
paragraph 101, and of 12 December 2013, Imfeld and Garcet, C-303/12, 
EU:C:2013:822, paragraph 70). 
64 It should be recalled that, in the calculation of the Belgian tax, the maintenance 
payments were deducted before excluding the portion of the earnings which is 
exempt under the convention, and, consequently, that the deduction of the 
maintenance payments was proportionally allocated across the total earnings of 
the applicant, who has thus in fact lost part of the deduction of his payments. 
65 The Belgian State objects, however, that under Article 25 of the Convention 
between France and Belgium and Article 197A of the French CGI, France should, 
in theory, take the deduction of the maintenance payments into account in 
calculating the tax due on the income that originates in France and is taxable in 
France under the convention. 
66 The Court of Justice has held, nevertheless, that ‘it cannot be inferred from the 
fact that, in Luxembourg, the applicant in the main proceedings obtained a tax 
reduction in an amount at least equivalent to that of the tax advantages which he 
lost in Belgium that his personal and family circumstances were taken into 
account in full’ (judgment of 15 July 2021, État belge (Loss of tax advantages in 
the Member State of residence), C-241/20, EU:C:2021:605, paragraph 58). 
67 It should be borne in mind that, according to the settled case-law of the Court of 
Justice, ‘it is a matter for the State of residence, in principle, to grant the taxpayer 
all the tax allowances relating to his personal and family circumstances because 
that State is best placed to assess the taxpayer’s personal ability to pay tax, since 
MARHAUX 
 
13 
that is where his personal and financial interests are centred’ (judgment of 
28 February 2013, Beker and Beker, C-168/11, EU:C:2013:117, paragraph 43) 
and that the Member State of employment is required to take into account 
personal and family circumstances only where the taxpayer derives almost all or 
all of his or her taxable income from employment in that State and where he or 
she has no significant income in his or her State of residence, so that the latter is 
not in a position to grant him or her the advantages resulting from taking account 
of his or her personal and family circumstances (judgment of 12 December 2002, 
de Groot, C-385/00, EU:C:2002:750, paragraph 89, citing the judgments of 
14 February 1995, Schumacker, C-279/93, EU:C:1995:31, paragraph 36, and of 
14 September 1999, Gschwind, C-391/97, EU:C:1999:409, paragraph 27). 
68 The question also arises as to whether, in order to comply with Article 45 of the 
FEU Treaty, Belgium must take account, in the calculation of the personal tax 
imposed on residents, of the fact that, notwithstanding a non-discrimination 
provision of an international agreement, such as Article 25(2) of the Convention 
between France and Belgium, which provides for personal deductions, allowances 
and tax reductions based on family circumstances or responsibilities to be granted 
pro rata to non-residents, that Belgian resident will benefit from his maintenance 
payments being taken into account for tax purposes in proportion to his taxable 
income, either in France or in Belgium, on account of specific conditions laid 
down by the national legislation of the Member State of employment, in the 
present case Article 197A of the French CGI, pursuant to which maintenance 
payments are not to be deducted when calculating French tax unless those 
payments are taxable in the hands of their beneficiary in France and taking them 
into account is not such as to reduce the tax payable by the taxpayer in his or her 
State of residence. 
69 In accordance with Article 267(a) TFEU, the Court of Justice of the European 
Union has jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings concerning the interpretation of 
the Treaties. 
8. Question referred for a preliminary ruling: 
70 The court refers the following question to the Court of Justice of the European 
Union for a preliminary ruling: 
‘Must Article 45 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a Member State (Belgium) 
must take account, in calculating the tax to be paid by a natural person who is its 
resident, of the fact that, notwithstanding a non-discrimination provision of an 
international agreement – such as Article 25(2) of the Convention between France 
and Belgium for the avoidance of double taxation of 10 March 1964, which 
provides for personal deductions, allowances and tax reductions based on family 
circumstances or responsibilities being granted pro rata to non-residents – that 
person, on account of specific conditions laid down by the national legislation of 
the Member State of employment (France) – in the present case Article 197A of 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-150/25 
 
14 
the Code général des impôts (French General Tax Code), pursuant to which, for 
the calculation of French tax, maintenance payments [made by] that non-resident 
of that State of employment are not to be deducted for the purpose of calculating 
the rate of French tax unless those maintenance payments are taxable in the hands 
of their beneficiary in France and taking them into account is not such as to reduce 
the tax payable by the taxpayer in his or her State of residence – does not have the 
benefit of the maintenance payments being taken into account for tax purposes in 
proportion to the respective taxable income, either in the State of employment 
(France) or in the State of residence (Belgium), even though that State of 
residence is able to calculate the tax by attributing the deductible maintenance 
payments to the local income after having excluded the part of the earnings that 
are exempted by international agreement, so as not to curtail the benefit of the 
deduction by attributing the maintenance payments to income which is exempted 
by international agreement subject to the method of exemption with progression 
and in respect of which that person has not actually had the benefit, in the State of 
employment, of those maintenance payments being taken into account 
proportionately?’