Available languages

Taxonomy tags

Info

References in this case

Share

Highlight in text

Go

12.5.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/16

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te ‘s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 10 February 2014 — X, interested party: Directeur van het onderdeel Belastingregio Belastingdienst/X van de rijksbelastingdienst

(Case C-72/14)

2014/C 142/21

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Gerechtshof te ‘s-Hertogenbosch

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: X

Interested party: Directeur van het onderdeel Belastingregio Belastingdienst/X van de rijksbelastingdienst

Questions referred

1.

In the Fitzwilliam  (1) judgment the Court of Justice ruled that an E 101 certificate, issued by the competent institution of a Member State, is binding on the social security institutions of other Member States, even if the content of that certificate is incorrect. Does that decision also apply to cases such as that at issue here, where the designation rules of the Regulation (2) do not apply?

2.

Is it significant for the answer to that question that it was not the intention of the competent institution to issue an E 101 certificate, yet for administrative reasons it consciously and deliberately used documents which, judging by their format and content, appear to be E 101 certificates, while the interested party believed, and was also reasonably entitled to believe, that he had received such a certificate?

(1)  Case C-202/97 FTS [2000] ECR I-883.

(2)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition, 1971 (II) p. 416).