Judgment of the Court of Justice First Chamber of 12 October 2023, BA Inheritance – Public housing policy in the European Union, C-670/21

• Date: 12 October 2023
• Year: 2023

4

In that regard, it notes that, as regards personal data relating to health, the GDPR specifies that the

right of access of data subjects includes ‘the data in their medical records containing information such

as diagnoses, examination results, assessments by treating physicians and any treatment or

interventions provided’.

8

It is because of the sensitive nature of those data that the EU legislature

thus highlighted the importance of ensuring that natural persons are given access to the data

contained in their medical records as fully and precisely as possible, but also in a form which is

intelligible.

Regarding examination results, assessments by treating physicians and treatments or interventions

provided to a patient, which, as a general rule, involve a large amount of technical data, or even

images, the provision of a simple summary or a compilation of those data by the medical practitioner,

in order to present them in an aggregated form, could create the risk of some relevant data being

omitted or incorrectly reproduced, or, in any event, of it being made harder for the patient to verify

how accurate and exhaustive those data are and to understand those data.

II. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT: FREE MOVEMENT OF CAPITAL

Judgment of the Court of Justice (First Chamber) of 12 October 2023, BA (Inheritance –

Public housing policy in the European Union), C-670/21

Link to the full text of the judgment

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Free movement of capital – Articles 63 to 65 TFEU –

Inheritance tax – Movement of capital between Member States and third countries – Immovable property

located in a third country – More favourable tax treatment for immovable property located in a Member

State or in a State which is party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area – Restriction –

Justification – Housing policy – Effectiveness of fiscal supervision

A, a German resident, who died in 2016, bequeathed in 2013 to his son, BA, also a German resident, a

share of an immovable property located in Canada let for residential purposes.

In July 2017, the competent tax office determined the amount of inheritance tax payable by BA in

Germany. For the purpose of calculating that tax, that immovable property was assessed at its full

market value. In March 2018, BA sought to amend the amount of that tax, so that that property would

be taxed at 90% of its market value, as provided for in the German law on inheritance and gift tax.

Observing that that law requires, in order for that immovable property to benefit from that tax

advantage, that that property be located in Germany, another Member State or a State which is party

to the Agreement on the European Economic Area,

9

BA claimed that that law infringed the free

movement of capital between Member States and third countries enshrined in Article 63 TFEU. Taking

the view, however, that such a difference in treatment between immovable property located in one of

those three types of country and property of the same nature located in a non-Member State other

than a State which is party to the EEA Agreement complies with that provision, the Tax Office first

rejected BA’s request for amendment and then the objection which he had lodged.

8

Recital 63 of the GDPR.

9

Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992 (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3; ‘the EEA Agreement’).