Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2013:124
Date: 2013-02-28
Language of the case: German
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Freedom to provide services;Free movement of workers;Administrative cooperation
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 28 February 2013 1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Identifying the relevant provisions of EU law — Reformulating questions referred (Art. 267 TFEU) 2. Free movement of persons — Workers — Provisions of EU law — Worker residing in one Member State, employed by an undertaking from another Member State and carrying on his activity in a third State — Condition for application — Close link between the employment relationship and the law of a Member State (Art. 45 TFEU) 3. Free movement of persons — Workers — Restrictions — No exemption from taxation on income received for work carried out by a worker residing in one Member State and employed by an undertaking from another Member State — Not permissible — No justification (Art. 45 TFEU) 4. Free movement of persons — Workers — Restrictions — Worker residing in a Member State and carrying on his activity in a third State — National legislation making exemption from taxation on income received by that worker dependent on the third State supplying information — Administrative cooperation in the field of taxation — Directive 2011/16 — No obligation for there to be mutual assistance between the competent authorities of a Member State and a third State (Art. 45 TFEU; Council Directives 77/799 and 2011/16) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 23, 24) 2. Provisions of EU law may apply to professional activities pursued outside the territory of the European Union as long as the employment relationship retains a sufficiently close link with the European Union. That principle must be deemed to extend also to cases in which there is a sufficiently close link between the employment relationship, on the one hand, and the law of a Member State and thus the relevant rules of EU law, on the other. A link of that kind exists due to the fact that a European Union citizen, who is resident in a Member State, has been engaged by an undertaking established in another Member State on whose behalf he carries on his activities. The fact that he carries on his activity in the context of development aid focused entirely in a third State cannot undermine the links to EU law. (see paras 41-43) 3. Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State pursuant to which income received for employment activities by a taxpayer who is resident in that Member State and has unlimited tax liability is exempt from income tax if the employer is established in that Member State, but is not so exempt if that employer is established in another Member State. Such legislation constitutes a restriction on the free movement of workers, and the Member State concerned cannot rely on the fact that it may be impossible to seek cooperation from another Member State in conducting inquiries or collecting information to effect a correct assessment of the taxes and duties concerned in order to justify a refusal to grant a tax advantage. There is no reason why the tax authorities concerned should not request from the taxpayer the evidence that they consider they require for that purpose and, where appropriate, refuse the exemption applied for if that evidence is not supplied. In that regard, it cannot be ruled out, as a matter of principle, that the taxpayer may be in a position to provide relevant documentary evidence enabling the tax authorities of the Member State imposing the tax to ascertain, clearly and precisely, whether he satisfies the requirements for receiving the tax advantage in question. (see paras 46, 51, 52, 62, operative part) 4. See the text of the decision. (see para. 55)