Hudzinski, Wawrzyniak

Asuntos acumulados C-611/10, C-612/10     Joint cases C-611/10, C-612/10

English summary: Articles 14(1)(a) and 14a(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State, which is not designated under those provisions as being the competent State, from granting child benefits in accordance with its national law to a migrant worker who is working temporarily within its territory in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, including in the case where it is established, first, that the worker concerned has not suffered any legal disadvantage by reason of the fact that he has exercised his freedom of movement, since he has retained his entitlement to family benefits of the same kind in the competent Member State, and, second, that neither that worker nor the child for whom the benefit is claimed habitually resides within the territory of the Member State in which the temporary work was carried out. The rules of the FEU Treaty on the free movement of workers must be interpreted as precluding the application, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of a rule of national law, such as that resulting from Paragraph 65 of the Law on income tax (Einkommensteuergesetz), in so far as it involves, not a reduction in the amount of the benefit corresponding to the amount of a comparable benefit received in another State, but exclusion from that benefit.
Trending topic: balanced allocation of taxing powers.
Doctrina: “El Derecho de la Unión no se opone a que un Estado miembro reconozca prestaciones familiares a trabajadores destacados o de temporada con respecto a los cuales no es, en principio, el Estado competente. No obstante, una vez ejercida esta facultad, la norma nacional que excluye tales prestaciones cuando debe abonarse en otro Estado una prestación equivalente es contraria a la libre circulación de los trabajadores“.

Comentario: la sentencia resulta especialmente interesante, pues vincula la discriminación en el ámbito de la Seguridad Social con el reparto del poder tributario. En efecto, considera que “una desventaja de este tipo resulta tanto menos justificada por cuanto la prestación solicitada se financia mediante ingresos fiscales y por cuanto, según la legislación alemana, los Sres. Hudzinski y Wawrzyniak tienen derecho a dicha prestación por haber estado sujetos al impuesto sobre la renta en Alemania por obligación personal. Por consiguiente, semejante desventaja, aun cuando pueda explicarse por las disparidades de las legislaciones sobre seguridad social de los Estados miembros, que subsisten pese a la existencia de normas de coordinación previstas por el Derecho de la Unión, es contraria a las exigencias del Derecho de la Unión en materia de libre circulación de los trabajadores”.

Pensamos, por tanto, que es necesario un examen pausado de esta sentencia para comprender mejor la causa de justificación de las restricciones a las libertades basada en el reparto equilibrado de la soberanía fiscal (del “poder tributario”).

Tendencia: reparto equilibrado de la soberanía fiscal entre Estados miembros

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s