Case C-133/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Q
Date: 2013-03-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Netherlands, administrative cooperation, cultural heritage, heritage protection, real property, tax exemption, tax inspection








C_2013171EN.01001301.xml










15.6.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 171/13





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 18 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Staatssecretaris van Financiën, other party: Q
(Case C-133/13)
2013/C 171/25
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: 






 


Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken,










 


Staatssecretaris van Financiën




Defendant: Q

Questions referred







1.


Does the importance of the conservation of national natural heritage and cultural heritage, as addressed in the Natuurschoonwet 1928 (Law on nature protection 1928), constitute an overriding reason in the public interest which justifies a scheme whereby the application of an exemption from gift tax (recovery facility) is limited to estates situated in the Netherlands?










2.








(a)


May the authorities of a Member State, in the context of an investigation into whether an immovable property situated in another Member State may be designated as an estate for the purposes of the Natuurschoonwet 1928, rely on Council Directive 2010/24/EU (1) of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures, for assistance from the authorities of the Member State in which the immovable property is situated, when the designation as an estate pursuant to that law will result in an exemption being granted from the recovery of the gift tax which will be payable upon donation of that immovable property?










(b)


If question 2(a) must be answered in the affirmative, must the concept of ‘administrative enquiry’ in Article 3(7) of Council Directive 2011/16/EU (2) of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC, be interpreted as meaning that it also covers an on-site investigation?










(c)


If question 2(b) must be answered in the affirmative, may clarification of the term ‘administrative enquiries’ in Article 5(1) of Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures, be sought in the definition of the term ‘administrative enquiry’ in Article 3(7) of Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC?














3.


If question 2(a), question 2(b) or question 2(c) must be answered in the negative, should the principle of sincere cooperation, as laid down in Article 4(3) of the TEU, considered in conjunction with Article 167(2) of the TFEU, be interpreted as meaning that, when a Member State requests another Member State to provide assistance with the investigation of whether an immovable property situated in that other Member State may be designated as an estate for the purposes of a law which has as its aim the conservation and protection of national natural heritage and cultural heritage, the requested Member State is obliged to provide that assistance?










4.


Can a restriction on the free movement of capital be justified by invoking the need to guarantee effective fiscal controls, if it appears that the only risk to effectiveness of those controls is the need for national authorities to travel to another Member State for the period of 25 years referred to in Article 7(1) of the Natuurschoonwet 1928 in order to carry out the necessary controls there?






(1)  OJ 2010 L 84, p. 1.

(2)  OJ 2011 L 64, p. 1.