Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/49

(Case C-662/24)

(C/2025/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Ferrand, W. Roels, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1.Declare that the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 260 TFEU by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 March 2022 in Case C-60/21, Commission v Belgium (ECLI:EU:C:2022:172) concerning the Kingdom of Belgium’s failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

2.Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the Commission a penalty payment in the amount of EUR 25 200 for each day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case C-60/21, from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case until the date of full compliance with the judgment in Case C-60/21.

3.Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay to the Commission a lump sum, amounting to a minimum of EUR 2 352 000, to be calculated by multiplying a daily amount of EUR 4 200 by the number of days over which the infringement continued from the date of delivery of the judgment in Case C-60/21 until:

—the date of adoption, by the Kingdom of Belgium, of the measures required to comply with the judgment in Case C-60/21, if the Court finds that those measures were in fact adopted before it gives judgment in the present case;

—the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case, if the judgment in Case C-60/21 has not been fully complied with before that date.

4.Order Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission asserts that the Kingdom of Belgium has not adopted all the measures required to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 March 2022 in Case C-60/21, Commission v Belgium, concerning the Kingdom of Belgium’s failure to fulfil its obligations under Article 45 TFEU and Article 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area. The Commission submits, first, that by making the deduction of maintenance annuities for non-residents conditional on the fact that that deduction cannot be carried forward to a subsequent taxable period in their State of residence, whereas during the relevant taxable period they cannot benefit from that advantage on account of the small amount of their taxable income in that State, Belgium introduces a difference in treatment compared to residents, and, second, that the inclusion of the non-resident taxpayer’s spouse in the analysis of the comparability of situations contradicts the Court’s ruling in Case C-60/21.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/49/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—