Uwe Rüffler v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wrocławiu Ośrodek Zamiejscowy w Wałbrzychu.
Date: 2009-04-23
36. According to settled case‑law, in proceedings under Article 234 EC, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling (see, inter alia, Case C‑379/98 PreussenElektra  [2001] ECR I‑2099, paragraph 38; Case C‑221/07 Zablocka‑Weyhermüller  [2008] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 20; and Case C‑169/07 Hartlauer  [2009] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 24).
37. Nevertheless, the Court has also held that, in exceptional circumstances, it can examine the conditions in which the case was referred to it by the national court, in order to confirm its own jurisdiction (see, to that effect, Case 244/80 Foglia  [1981] ECR 3045, paragraph 21; see, also, PreussenElektra , paragraph 39, and Case C‑318/00 Bacardi-Martini and Cellier des Dauphins  [2003] ECR I-905, paragraph 42).
38. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see PreussenElektra , paragraph 39, and Zablocka‑Weyhermüller , paragraph 20).
52. The Court has already held, in Case C‑520/04 Turpeinen  [2006] ECR I‑10685, paragraph 16, that persons who have carried out all their occupational activity in the Member State of which they are nationals and who have exercised the right to reside in another Member State only after their retirement, without any intention of working in that other State, cannot rely on freedom of movement as a worker.
55. As a German national, Mr Rüffler enjoys the status of a citizen of the Union established by Article 17(1) EC and may, therefore, rely if necessary on the rights conferred on those having that status, such as the rights to move freely and to reside freely laid down in Article 18(1) EC (see, to that effect, Case C‑499/06 Nerkowska  [2008] ECR I‑3993, paragraph 22, and Zablocka‑Weyhermüller , paragraph 26).
56. A situation such as that of Mr Rüffler is covered by the right of free movement and residence in the Member States of citizens of the European Union. Persons who, after retirement, leave the Member State of which they are nationals and in which they have carried out all their occupational activity in order to set up residence in another Member State exercise the right which Article 18(1) EC confers on every citizen of the European Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (see, to that effect, Turpeinen , paragraphs 16 to 19).
57. It is necessary to point out that, even though the national court does not refer to Article 18 EC in the wording of its preliminary question, the Court is not thereby precluded from providing the national court with all those elements for the interpretation of Community law which may be of assistance in adjudicating on the case pending before it, whether or not that court has specifically referred to them in its question (see, to that effect, Case C-241/89 SARPP  [1990] ECR I‑4695, paragraph 8; Case C‑152/03 Ritter‑Coulais  [2006] ECR I‑1711, paragraph 29; and Case C-392/05 Alevizos  [2007] ECR I‑3505, paragraph 64).
59. Lastly, with regard to Article 12 EC, the first paragraph of that article states that, within the scope of application of the Treaty, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality is to be prohibited. In addition, it is settled case-law that the principle of non‑discrimination laid down in Article 12 EC requires that comparable situations must not be treated differently unless such treatment is objectively justified (see Case C-403/03 Schempp  [2005] ECR I-6421, paragraph 28).
– Compatibility with Article 18 EC
62. According to settled case-law, the status of citizen of the European Union is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States, enabling those among such nationals who find themselves in the same situation to receive the same treatment in law irrespective of their nationality, subject to such exceptions as are expressly provided for in that regard (see, in particular, Case C-224/02 Pusa  [2004] ECR I‑5763, paragraph 16; Case C-76/05 Schwarz and Gootjes-Schwarz  [2007] ECR I‑6849, paragraph 86; and Case C-524/06 Huber  [2008] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 69).
63. Situations falling within the scope of Community law include those involving the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guar anteed by the Treaty, in particular those involving the freedom to move and reside within the territory of the Member States, as conferred by Article 18 EC ( Pusa , paragraph 17, and Schwarz and Gootjes-Schwarz , paragraph 87).
64. Inasmuch as a citizen of the Union must be granted, in all Member States, the same treatment in law as that accorded to nationals of those Member States who find themselves in the same situation, it would be incompatible with the right to freedom of movement were a citizen to receive, in the host Member State, treatment less favourable than that which he would enjoy if he had not availed himself of the opportunities offered by the Treaty in relation to freedom of movement (see, by analogy, on treatment in the Member State of which the citizen of the Union is a national, Pusa , paragraph 18; Schwarz and Gootjes-Schwarz , paragraph 88; and Case C‑318/05 Commission  v Germany  [2007] ECR I-6957, paragraph 127).
65. Those opportunities could not be fully effective if a national of a Member State could be deterred from availing himself of them by obstacles placed in the way of his stay in the host Member State by national legislation penalising the fact that he has used them (see, to that effect, Pusa , paragraph 19; see also Case C‑192/05 Tas‑Hagen and Tas  [2006] ECR I‑10451, paragraph 30, and Zablocka‑Weyhermüller , paragraph 34).
72. To the extent to which it makes the granting of a tax advantage in connection with health insurance contributions conditional on those contributions having been paid to a Polish health insurance body and leads to that advantage being refused to taxpayers who have paid contributions to the body of another Member State, the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings disadvantages taxpayers who, like Mr Rüffler, have exercised their freedom of movement by leaving the Member State in which they have carried out all their occupational activity in order to take up residence in Poland.
73. Such national legislation, which disadvantages some nationals of a Member State simply because they have exercised their freedom to move and to reside in another Member State, amounts to a restriction on the freedoms conferred by Article 18(1) EC on every citizen of the Union.
74. Such a restriction can be justified, under Community law, only if it is based on objective considerations independent of the nationality of the persons concerned and is proportionate to the legitimate objective of the national provisions (Case C‑406/04 De Cuyper  [2006] ECR I‑6947, paragraph 40; Tas‑Hagen and Tas , paragraph 33; and Zablocka‑Weyhermüller , paragraph 37).
82. In that regard, in Case C‑107/94 Asscher  [1996] ECR I‑3089, at paragraph 64, the Court took the view that the application of disadvantageous tax treatment, namely a higher rate of income tax, to non‑resident taxpayers who were not contributing to the social security scheme of the Netherlands was contrary to Article 52 of the Treaty and could not be justified by whether or not the taxpayer was insured under the particular national social security scheme. It stressed in that regard that the determination of the Member State in which the social contributions are paid merely results from the application of the system put in place by Regulation No 1408/71. The fact that certain taxpayers are not insured with a particular social security scheme and that the contributions to that scheme are consequently not levied on their income in the Member State in question can only derive, if it is justified, from the application, when determining the legislation applicable, of the binding general system set up by Regulation No 1408/71 (see, to that effect, Asscher , paragraph 60).
83. The Court has ruled that the fact that Member States are not entitled to determine the extent to which their own legislation or that of another Member State is applicable, since they are under an obligation to comply with the provisions of Community law in force, precludes a Member State from using tax measures in reality to make up for the fact that a taxpayer is not insured with, and does not pay contributions to, its social security scheme ( Asscher , paragraph 61).