CELEX: C2005/057/32
Language: en
Date: 2005-03-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-520/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 20 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 22 December 2004, in the case of Pirkko Marjatta Turpeinen

5.3.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 57/17
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 20 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 22 December 2004, in the case of Pirkko Marjatta Turpeinen
   (Case C-520/04)
   (2005/C 57/32)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court, Finland) of 20 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 22 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Pirkko Marjatta Turpeinen on the following questions:
   
               1.
            
            
               Is Article 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Community on the right of a citizen of the Union to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States, or Article 39 on ensuring the freedom of movement of workers within the Community, to be interpreted as meaning that one or both of them preclude national legislation under which, in the case of a person who resides abroad and is a limited taxpayer in the Member State, the withholding tax charged on the taxpayer's pension based on a public-law service relationship paid from that Member State exceeds in certain cases the tax which the taxpayer would be charged as a person resident and hence a general taxpayer in the Member State?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Is Council Directive 90/365/EEC on the right of residence for employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their occupational activity (1) to be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that described in Question 1 above?
            
         
      (1)  OJ L 180 of 13.7.1990, p. 28.