Reports of Cases

published in the electronic Reports of Cases (Court Reports - general)

Subject-matter

Information not available

Systematic classification scheme

Citations of case-law or legislation

References in grounds of judgment

• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 39 : paragraphs 1, 15
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 39 -P2 : paragraphs 16, 20, 35, 36
• Recommendation - 31994H0079 -A02P2 : paragraph 33
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/93 : paragraph 23
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/93 -N23 : paragraph 20
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/93 -N30 : paragraph 21
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/93 -N31 : paragraph 22
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/93 -N32 : paragraph 22
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/93 -N36 : paragraph 25
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/93 -N38 : paragraph 26
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -391/97 -N26 : paragraph 24
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -383/05 -N18 : paragraph 21
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -182/06 : paragraph 27
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -182/06 -N30 : paragraph 25
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -182/06 -N31 : paragraph 26
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -182/06 -N34 : paragraph 19
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -527/06 -N61 : paragraph 25
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -527/06 -N62 : paragraph 26
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -527/06 -N63 : paragraph 27
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -527/06 -N65 : paragraph 19
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -527/06 -N66 : paragraph 19
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -527/06 -N67 : paragraph 19
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -512/13 -N22 : paragraph 20
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -559/13 -N25 : paragraph 22
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -559/13 -N26 : paragraph 23

Operative part

• Interprets : EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 39 -P2

Opinion

• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 39 : points 1, 16, 18, 32, 44, 45
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 39 -P1 : point 4
  
• EC Treaty (Amsterdam), Article 39 -P2 : points 4, 23, 25, 32, 40
  
• Directive 77/799 : point 36
  
• Court of Justice - Opinion C -279/93 -N83 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/93 : point 22
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/93 -N21 : point 24
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/93 -N26 : point 24
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/93 -N28 : point 25
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/93 -N29 : point 25
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/93 -N31 : points 2, 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/93 -N32 : points 2, 27
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/93 -N33 : point 2
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/93 -N34 : points 2, 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/93 -N35 : point 2
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/93 -N36 : points 2, 29
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -279/93 -N37 : points 2, 29
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -80/94 -N26 : point 36
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -107/94 -N45 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -107/94 -N46 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -107/94 -N47 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -107/94 -N48 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -107/94 -N49 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -391/97 -N22 : points 2, 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -391/97 -N24 : point 27
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -152/03 -N31 : point 18
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -376/03 -N41 : points 28, 42
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -520/04 -N32 : point 33
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -329/05 -N21 : point 24
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -329/05 -N23 : point 27
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -383/05 -N19 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -182/06 -N30 : point 29
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -527/06 -N61 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -527/06 -N65 : point 29
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -527/06 -N66 : point 29
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -527/06 -N67 : point 29
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -527/06 -N68 : point 29
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -527/06 -N71 : point 29
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -527/06 -N78 : point 36
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -527/06 -N81 : point 33
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -440/08 -N44 : point 30
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -440/08 -N54 : point 23
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -39/10 -N49 : points 2, 28
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -544/11 -N52 : point 36
  
• Court of Justice - Judgment C -303/12 -N64 : point 33
  

Dates

Date of the lodging of the application initiating proceedings

• 13/01/2014

Date of the Opinion

• 05/03/2015

Date of the hearing

Information not available

Date of delivery

18/06/2015

References

Publication in the Official Journal

Judgment: OJ C 279 from 24.08.2015, p.11

Application: OJ C 102 from 07.04.2014, p.14

Name of the parties

Kieback

Notes on Academic Writings

1. Smit, Daniël: Pending Case C-14/09, Kieback: Pro rata Application of the Schumacker/Renneberg-Doctrine, ECJ - Recent Developments in Direct Taxation 2014 (Ed. Linde - Wien) 2014 p.169-182 (EN)
2. Henze, Thomas: “Schumacker revisited“ – Keine Berücksichtigung der persönlichen Verhältnisse bei der Besteuerung eines gebietsfremden Arbeitnehmers im Beschäftigungsstaat, wenn dieser nicht nahezu seine gesamten Familieneinkünfte in einem Kalenderjahr in dem betreffenden Staat erzielt, Internationale Steuer-Rundschau : ISR 2015 p.293-295 (DE)
3. Spies, Karoline: EuGH: Zeitliche Bezugsgröße der Schumacker-Rsp ist das „gesamte Steuerjahr“, Ecolex 2015 p.709-711 (DE)
4. Van den Broek, J.J.: Het Hof van Justitie van Schumacker tot Kieback: indirecte discriminatie van buitenlandse werknemers in de inkomstenbelasting, Nederlands tijdschrift voor Europees recht 2015 p.319-327 (NL)
5. Mosbrucker, Anne-Laure: Impot sur le revenu, Europe 2015 Août-Septembre Comm. nº 8-9 p.23-24 (FR)
6. Peeters, Bart: Kieback: When Schumacker Emigrates . . ., EC Tax Review 2016 p.58-69 (EN)

Procedural Analysis Information

Source of the question referred for a preliminary ruling

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden - Netherlands

Subject-matter

• Freedom of movement for persons
  
• - Freedom of movement for workers
  

Provisions of national law referred to

Libellé à effacer, art. 3.111

Provisions of international law referred to

Information not available

Procedure and result

• Reference for a preliminary ruling
  

Formation of the Court

Deuxième chambre (Cour)

Judge-Rapporteur

Bonichot

Advocate General

Sharpston

Language(s) of the Case

• Dutch
  

Language(s) of the Opinion

• English