Ministre délégué, chargé du budget v Marlène Pazdziej.
Date: 2015-05-21
10. However the ministre délégué asserts that, on the one hand, the judgment in Vander Zwalmen and Massart (C‑229/98, EU:C:1999:501) indicates that those provisions do not preclude the refusal of a tax advantage, which applies indiscriminately to households whose income fall below a certain amount, to households in which one spouse is an official or other servant of the Union and where the salary of that spouse exceeds that amount.
14. In order to answer that question, it must be recalled that Article 12 of the Protocol ensures a uniform treatment of the said salaries, wages and emoluments for all the officials and other servants of the Union, preventing, firstly and chiefly, their effective remuneration from differing according to their nationality or fiscal domicile as a result of the assessment of different national taxes, and, secondly, preventing this remuneration from being inordinately taxed as a result of double liability (judgment in Brouerius van Nidek , 7/74, EU:C:1974:73, paragraph 11).
16. It follows that the exemption provided by the second paragraph of Article 12 of the Protocol therefore only covers national taxes of a similar nature to those levied by the Union on the same sources of income (judgment in Brouerius van Nidek , 7/74, EU:C:1974:73, paragraph 12).
17. Further, it must be added that the Court has previously held that the second paragraph of Article 12 of the Protocol provides for an exemption from all direct and indirect national taxes on salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the Union to its officials or other servants. It precludes, therefore, any national tax, regardless of its nature and the manner in which it is levied, which is imposed directly or indirectly on officials or other servants, by reason of the fact that they are in receipt of remuneration paid by the Union, even if the tax in question is not calculated by reference to the amount of that remuneration (judgments in Commission  v Belgium , 260/86, EU:C:1988:91, paragraph 10; Tither , C‑333/88, EU:C:1990:131, paragraph 12; Kristoffersen , C‑263/91, EU:C:1993:207, paragraph 14, and Vander Zwalmen and Massart , C‑229/98, EU:C:1999:501, paragraph 24).
19. On the other hand, Article 12 of the Protocol does not require Member States to grant officials and other servants of the Union the same advantages that are granted to beneficiaries determined in accordance with the relevant national provisions. Article 12 merely requires that, whenever such persons are subject to certain taxes and satisfy the conditions of the relevant national legislation, they are able to enjoy any tax advantage normally available to taxable persons, so as to prevent their being subject to a greater tax burden (judgment in Tither , C‑333/88, EU:C:1990:131, paragraph 15), or being subject to discrimination as compared with all other taxpayers (see, to that effect, judgment in Vander Zwalmen and Massart , C‑229/98, EU:C:1999:501, paragraph 26).
22. In that context, the Court has previously held that the taxation of the rental value of the home of an official or other servant of the Union is charged on an objective basis and has no legal connection with the salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the Union (judgment in Kristoffersen , C‑263/91, EU:C:1993:207, paragraph 15).