Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 40kWORD 10k
27 April 2021
E-002266/2021
Question for written answer  E-002266/2021
to the Commission
Rule 138
Søren Gade (Renew)
 Answer in writing 
 Subject: Taxation of exchange rate fluctuations

It has been brought to my attention that two rulings with conflicting interpretations of EU law have been handed down by two different supreme courts in two different Member States.

These are the ruling of Sweden’s Supreme Administrative Court in Case No 3238-12 of 16 February 2016(1), and the ruling of Denmark’s Supreme Court in Case No 78/2016 of 11 November 2019(2).

Both cases concerned the taxation of exchange rate fluctuations in an EU currency other than that of the Member State in question. And both cases involved a difference in treatment between the national currency and other EU currencies. The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in Joined Cases C-398/16 and C-399/16 that as long as the differential treatment is ‘symmetrical’, EU law does not preclude the national currency being treated differently from another EU currency.

Both the Swedish and the Danish cases, however, concerned undisputed differential treatment in an asymmetrical situation. In the Swedish ruling, the Supreme Administrative Court found that differential treatment of a foreign EU currency in an asymmetrical taxation situation constituted a restriction on freedom of movement. Three and a half years later, the Danish Supreme Court found that differential treatment of a foreign EU currency in an asymmetrical taxation situation did not constitute a restriction on free movement.

Does the Commission see the need to react to the fact that on a matter of EU law, different legal situations apply in the Member States?

(1)https://www.domstol.se/globalassets/filer/domstol/hogstaforvaltningsdomstolen/avgoranden-2008-2018/2016/mal-nr-3238-12.pdf
(2)https://domstol.fe1.tangora.com/media/-300016/files/78-16.pdf
Original language of question: DA
Last updated: 17 May 2021Legal notice - Privacy policy