Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Margaretha Bouanich v Directeur des services fiscaux de la Drôme (C-375/12)
Judgment
Consideration of the questions referred
Whether there is a restriction on the…
58

Margaretha Bouanich v Directeur des services fiscaux de la Drôme (C-375/12)

Judgment of 13 Mar 2014law://eu/cjeu/2012/c-375-12/para_58@2026-11-10

58It is also settled case-law that all measures which prohibit, impede or render less attractive the exercise of the freedom of establishment must be regarded as restrictions on that freedom (see Case C‑380/11 DI. VI. Finanziaria di Diego della Valle & C. [2012] ECR, paragraph 33).

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Fifth Chamber
Case: C-375/12 · ECLI:EU:C:2014:138
Decided: 13 Mar 2014
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Tribunal administratif de Grenoble (France)
Applicant: Margaretha Bouanich
Defendant: Directeur des services fiscaux de la Drôme
Rapporteur: A. Rosas
Advocate General: M. Wathelet
Bench: 5 judges
T. von Danwitz, E. Juhász, A. Rosas, D. Šváby, C. Vajda
Language: French
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62012CJ0375

Topics

Freedom of establishment Free movement of capital Taxation

History · 1 version

13 Mar 2014Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)4 provisions
Cited by 9: X AB v Skatteverket (C-686/13)2 provisions; SIA „KOB” v Madonas novada pašvaldības Administratīvo aktu strīdu komisija (C-206/19); A SCPI v Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö (C-342/20); AllianzGI-Fonds AEVN v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (C-545/19); UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v Agenzia delle Entrate (C-478/19); Guy Riskin and Geneviève Timmermans v État belge (C-176/15); Groupe Steria SCA v Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics (C-386/14); Rita van Caster and Patrick van Caster v Finanzamt Essen-Süd (C-326/12); Kronos International Inc. v Finanzamt Leverkusen (C-47/12)
Cites 23: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)3 provisions; Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue and The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (C-35/11); Manfred Beker and Christa Beker v Finanzamt Heilbronn (C-168/11); Mark Kerckhaert and Bernadette Morres v Belgische Staat (C-513/04); Proceedings brought by Aberdeen Property Fininvest Alpha Oy (C-303/07); Marks & Spencer plc v David Halsey (Her Majesty's Inspector of Taxes) (C-446/03); Haribo Lakritzen Hans Riegel BetriebsgmbH and Österreichische Salinen AG v Finanzamt Linz (C-436/08, C-437/08); National Grid Indus BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Rijnmond/kantoor Rotterdam (C-371/10); Oy AA (C-231/05); European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany (C-284/09); Santander Asset Management SGIIC SA, on behalf of FIM Santander Top 25 Euro Fi (C‑338/11) v Directeur des résidents à l'étranger et des services généraux and Santander Asset Management SGIIC SA, on behalf of Cartera Mobiliaria SA SICAV (C‑339/11 to C‑347/11) and Others v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics, de la Fonction publique et de la Réforme de l’État (C-338/11, C-339/11, C-340/11, C-341/11, C-342/11, C-343/11, C-344/11, C-345/11, C-346/11, C-347/11); Petri Manninen (C-319/02); Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Orange European Smallcap Fund NV (C-194/06); European Commission v Republic of Hungary (C-253/09); Société Papillon v Ministère du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Fonction publique (C-418/07); État du Grand Duchy of Luxemburg v Hans Ulrich Lakebrink and Katrin Peters-Lakebrink (C-182/06); Margaretha Bouanich v Skatteverket (C-265/04); European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (C-387/11); Rewe Zentralfinanz eG v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte (C-347/04); Staatssecretaris van Financiën v B.G.M. Verkooijen (C-35/98); F.W.L. de Groot v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-385/00); Finanzamt Köln-Altstadt v Roland Schumacker (C-279/93); Guido Imfeld and Nathalie Garcet v État belge (C-303/12)