Case C-179/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 February 2016 — European Commission v Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2006/123/EC — Articles 14 to 16 — Article 49 TFEU — Freedom of establishment — Article 56 TFEU — Freedom to provide services — Conditions for issuing vouchers entailing a tax advantage which are provided by employers to their employees and may be used for accommodation, leisure and/or meals — Restrictions — Monopoly)
Date: 2016-02-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: allowances and expenses, domestic market, electronic money, freedom to provide services, infringement of EU law, monopoly, national law, right of establishment, tax relief








C_2016145EN.01000502.xml










25.4.2016   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 145/5






Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 February 2016 — European Commission v Hungary
(Case C-179/14) (1)

((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2006/123/EC - Articles 14 to 16 - Article 49 TFEU - Freedom of establishment - Article 56 TFEU - Freedom to provide services - Conditions for issuing vouchers entailing a tax advantage which are provided by employers to their employees and may be used for accommodation, leisure and/or meals - Restrictions - Monopoly))
(2016/C 145/05)
Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Tokár and E. Montaguti, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary (represented by: M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:






1.


Declares that by introducing and retaining the Széchenyi leisure card scheme provided for by Government Decree No 55/2011 of 12 April 2011 regulating the issue and use of the Széchenyi leisure card, and amended by Law No CLVI of 21 November 2011 amending certain tax laws and other related measures, Hungary has infringed Directive 2006/123/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on services in the internal market, in so far as:






—


Paragraph 13 of Government Decree No 55/2011, read in conjunction with Paragraph 2(2)(d) of Law No XCVI of 1993 on voluntary mutual insurance funds, Paragraph 2(b) of Law No CXXXII of 1997 on branches and commercial agencies of undertakings which have their registered office abroad and Paragraphs 1, 2(1) and (2), 55(1) and (3) and 64(1) of Law No IV of 2006 on companies and firms governed by commercial law, precludes the issue of the Széchenyi leisure card by branches and thereby infringes Article 14, point (3), of Directive 2006/123;










—


Paragraph 13 of Government Decree No 55/2011, read in conjunction with the above-mentioned national provisions, which does not recognise, for the purposes of the conditions laid down in Paragraph 13(a) to (c) of that decree, the activity of groups whose parent company is not a company formed in accordance with Hungarian law and whose members do not operate in the forms of company provided for by Hungarian law, infringes Article 15(1), (2)(b) and (3) of Directive 2006/123;










—


Paragraph 13 of Government Decree No 55/2011, read in conjunction with the above-mentioned national provisions, which restricts to banks and financial institutions the possibility of issuing the Széchenyi leisure card as they are the only entities able to meet the conditions laid down by Paragraph 13 of the decree, infringes Article 15(1), (2)(d) and (3) of Directive 2006/123;










—


Paragraph 13 of Government Decree No 55/2011 infringes Article 16 of Directive 2006/123 inasmuch as it requires, for the issue of the Széchenyi leisure card, the existence of an establishment in Hungary;














2.


Declares that the system of Erzsébet vouchers governed by Law No CLVI of 21 November 2011 and Law No CIII of 6 July 2012 on the Erzsébet programme infringes Articles 49 TFEU and 56 TFEU inasmuch as that national legislation establishes a monopoly in favour of public bodies for the issue of vouchers which may be used to obtain cold meals and may be provided by employers to their employees, under advantageous tax conditions, as benefits in kind;










3.


Orders Hungary to pay the costs.






(1)  
            OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.