Official Journal of the European Union

EN

C series

—

C/2025/3029

10.6.2025

(Case C-150/25, Marhaux)

(C/2025/3029)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: BX

Defendant: État belge

Question referred

Must Article 45 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a Member State (Belgium) must take account, in calculating the tax to be paid by a natural person who is its resident, of the fact that, notwithstanding a non-discrimination provision of an international agreement – such as Article 25(2) of the Convention between France and Belgium for the avoidance of double taxation of 10 March 1964, which provides for personal deductions, allowances and tax reductions based on family circumstances or responsibilities being granted pro rata to non-residents – that person, on account of specific conditions laid down by the national legislation of the Member State of employment (France) – in the present case Article 197A of the Code général des impôts (French General Tax Code), pursuant to which, for the calculation of French tax, maintenance payments [made by] that non-resident of that State of employment are not to be deducted for the purpose of calculating the rate of French tax unless those maintenance payments are taxable in the hands of their beneficiary in France and taking them into account is not such as to reduce the tax payable by the taxpayer in his or her State of residence – does not have the benefit of the maintenance payments being taken into account for tax purposes in proportion to the respective taxable income, either in the State of employment (France) or in the State of residence (Belgium), even though that State of residence is able to calculate the tax by attributing the deductible maintenance payments to the local income after having excluded the part of the earnings that are exempted by international agreement, so as not to curtail the benefit of the deduction by attributing the maintenance payments to income which is exempted by international agreement subject to the method of exemption with progression and in respect of which that person has not actually had the benefit, in the State of employment, of those maintenance payments being taken into account proportionately?

—

The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

—

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/3029/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—