Case C-470/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof Arnhem, by decision of that court of 27 October 2004 in the case of N. against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Oost/Kantoor Almelo
Date: 2005-02-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, interpretation of the law, legal domicile, residence, tax on income, tax system, workplace

5.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/5

In conclusion, pursuant to Article 234 EC, the questions indi-
cated above regarding the interpretation of Articles 17 and 19
of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the
coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-
employed commercial agents must be referred to the Court of
Justice.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof
Arnhem, by decision of that court of 27 October 2004 in
the case of N. against Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst
Oost/Kantoor Almelo

(Case C-470/04)

(2005/C 31/11)

pursued within a foreseeable period? If so, how long
may that period be?

1.1.3 If the answer to question 1.1.1 or 1.1.2 is affirmative, do
Articles 18 or 43 EC preclude the relevant Dutch legisla-
tion by virtue of which an assessment to income tax and
social insurance contributions is served in respect of the
deemed enjoyment of profit from a substantial share-
holding, solely on the ground that a resident of the Neth-
erlands who ceases to be a domestic taxpayer because he
has moved his place of residence to another Member
State is deemed to have disposed of those of his shares
which form part of a substantial holding?

1.1.4 If the answer to question 1.1.3 is affirmative because of
the fact that security has to be provided to enable a
deferment of payment of
the tax assessed, can the
existing obstacle then be removed with retroactive effect
through the release of the security provided? Does the
answer to this question depend on whether the security
is released on the basis of legislation or a rule of policy,
whether or not adopted in the context of enforcement?
Does the answer to this question depend on whether
compensation is provided for any loss incurred as a
result of the provision of security?

(Language of the case: Dutch)

1.1.5 If the answer to question 1.1.3 is affirmative and the
answer to the first question in 1.1.4 is negative, can the
obstacle which then exists be justified?

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of
the Gerechtshof Arnhem,
(Court of Appeal, Arnhem) (Netherlands) of 27 October 2004
received at the Court Registry on 2 November 2004, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of N. against Inspecteur van de
Belastingdienst Oost/Kantoor Almelo on the following ques-
tions:

1.1.1 Can a resident of a Member State who ceases to reside in
to establish himself
in
that Member State in order
another Member State rely,
in proceedings against the
Member State which he is leaving, on the application of
Article 18 EC, solely on the ground that the serving of a
tax assessment linked with his departure entails, or may
entail, an obstacle to that departure?

1.1.2 If the answer to question 1.1.1 is negative, can a resident
of a Member State who ceases to reside in that Member
State in order to establish himself in another Member
State rely,
the Member State
which he is leaving, on the application of Article 43 EC
if it is not clear or plausible from the outset that he will
be pursuing in the other Member State an economic
activity as referred to in that article? Is it relevant to the
answer to the previous question that that activity will be

in proceedings against

Action brought on 16 November 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-477/04)

(2005/C 31/12)

(Language of the case: Italian)

Justice of

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
the European Communities on 16
Court of
November 2004 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, represented by Chiara Cattabriga and Barry Doherty,
acting as Agents.