Case C-436/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Beroep te Antwerpen by order of that court of  29 November 2005  in 1. Lucien de Graaf, and 2. Gudula Daniels v Belgian State
Date: 2006-02-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, free movement of workers, frontier worker, interpretation of the law, mutual assistance scheme, social-security contribution, tax relief

C 36/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.2.2006

(b) Is a prohibition such as that referred to in Question 1(a)
permissible only when the local authorities, in assessing
whether permission should be granted in accordance
with Paragraph 3(1), comply with the requirement that
permission must always be given for areas which fulfil
the criteria in Paragraph 3(1) to (3)?

contributions to social security in Belgium but in the State
of his employment, while all other residents of the State of
residence who are subject to the supplementary crisis contri-
bution are liable to pay contributions to social security in
Belgium?

2. Do Articles 28 to 30 EC preclude such national provisions
prohibiting the use of personal watercraft as referred to in
Question 1(a) generally or only in the circumstances referred
to in Question 1(b) above?

3. Irrespective of the foregoing, does the failure to notify the
Commission of the European Communities of the adoption
of the new jet-ski prohibition on 20 June 2004 pursuant to
Directive 83/189/EEC and Directive 98/34/EC preclude
national provisions such as those set out above?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van
Beroep te Antwerpen by order of
that court of 29
November 2005 in 1. Lucien de Graaf, and 2. Gudula
Daniels v Belgian State

(Case C-436/05)

(2006/C 36/49)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
the Hof van Beroep te
pean Communities by order of
Antwerpen of 29 November 2005, received at
the Court
Registry on 5 December 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between 1. Lucien de Graaf, and 2. Gudula Daniels
and Belgian State on the following questions:

1. Is Regulation No 1408/71 (1) applicable to a supplementary
is

crisis contribution (ACB)
intended to provide alternative financing of social security?

levied by national

law that

2. Under Article 39 EC may Belgium require a natural person,
who is resident in Belgium but who carries out (virtually) all
his professional activities in another Member State, to pay
the supplementary crisis contribution for the financing of
social security if the person concerned is not liable to pay

3. Does Article 39 EC permit a Member State to make a
distinction whereby residents in the frontier region who
work in another Member State are taxed substantially more
heavily than residents who do not live in the frontier region
and who also work in another Member State?

4. Can a resident of a Member State who performs his profes-
sional activities almost completely in another Member State
(A) rely on the principle of the ‘most favourable treatment’
where the Member State provides for a more favourable
fiscal treatment of other residents who also perform their
professional activities almost completely in a third Member
State (B)?

5. Does Article 39 EC or any other provision preclude a State
of residence from refusing a tax deduction of a sickness
insurance premium by a resident who performs his profes-
sional activities almost completely in another Member State
where a similar right of deduction is in fact available both
to inhabitants of the State of residence and to those in the
State of employment who make no use of the freedom of
movement for workers?

6. Does Article 39 EC or any other provision preclude the
State of residence from making the tax deduction of contri-
butions to sickness insurance conditional inter alia on this
sickness insurance being concluded with a local sickness
insurance fund recognised by the State of residence, when,
according to the legislation of the State of residence, it is
legally impossible for inhabitants of the State of residence
who use their right of freedom of movement for workers to
conclude supplementary sickness insurance with one of
those sickness insurance funds?

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on
the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
self-employed person and to members of their families moving
within the Community (OJ English Special Edition (1971)(II) p.
416).