{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-383-05","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-383-05)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-13","fingerprint":"ewai:eu:a03983","proof":"sha256:03708302c2b7f1ec9be95f44c70d0d2c4570f5b9172e76bc7af7e48c768b7c63","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"eu:c-383-05","jurisdiction":"eu","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8"],"kind":"front_matter"},{"title":"Summary of the Judgment","paragraphs":["para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32"],"kind":"summary"},{"title":"Judgment","paragraphs":["para_33","para_34","para_35"],"kind":"assessment"},{"title":"Legal context","paragraphs":["para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52"],"kind":"legal_framework"},{"title":"The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling","paragraphs":["para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62"],"kind":"facts"},{"title":"The question referred for preliminary ruling","paragraphs":["para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87"],"kind":"questions"},{"title":"Costs","paragraphs":["para_88","para_89"],"kind":"costs"},{"title":"On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules:","paragraphs":["para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93"],"kind":"operative"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"Case C-383/05","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"Raffaele Talotta","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"v","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"État belge","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Belgium))","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"(Freedom of establishment – Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) − Non‑resident taxpayer carrying out a self-employed activity\n − Setting of minimum tax bases applicable only to non‑resident taxpayers − Whether justified by requirements in the general\n interest − Effectiveness of fiscal supervision − Not justified)","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi delivered on 16 November 2006","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 22 March 2007","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Summary of the Judgment","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Freedom of movement for persons – Freedom of establishment – Tax legislation","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"(EC Treaty, Art. 52 (now, after amendment, Art. 43 EC)","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Article 52 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) precludes income tax legislation of a Member State which, for\n the assessment of the tax base in the absence of evidence provided by the interested parties or by the administration, lays\n down minimum tax bases only for non‑resident taxpayers.","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Income derived from self-employed activity in the territory of the Member State concerned, whether by a resident taxpayer\n or a non-resident taxpayer, falls within the same category of income. Moreover, the situation of a resident taxpayer and that\n of a non-resident taxpayer present, for the tax au …","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"(see paras 26, 28, 32, 38, operative part)","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"22 March 2007 ( * )","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"(Freedom of establishment – Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) − Non‑resident taxpayer carrying out a self-employed activity\n − Setting of minimum tax bases applicable only to non‑resident taxpayers − Justified by requirements of general interest −\n Effectiveness of fiscal supervision − Not justified)","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"In Case C-383/05,","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Cour de cassation (Belgium), made by decision of 7 October\n 2005, received at the Court on 24 October 2005, in the proceedings","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"Raffaele Talotta","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"v","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"État belge ,","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"THE COURT (First Chamber),","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen, A. Borg Barthet, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur) and E. Levits, Judges,","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"Advocate General: P. Mengozzi,","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"Registrar: R. Grass,","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"– Mr Talotta, by X. Thiebaut and X. Pace, avocats,","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"– the Belgian Government, by M. Wimmer, acting as Agent, assisted by B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, avocat,","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"– the Commission of the European Communities, by R. Lyal and D. Martin, acting as Agents,","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 16 November 2006","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"gives the following","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"Judgment","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"1 This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,\n Article 43 EC).","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"2 The reference was made in the context of proceedings between Mr Talotta and the État belge (Belgian State) regarding the application\n to Mr Talotta in his capacity as a non‑resident taxpayer of a minimum tax base in respect of the 1992 tax year.","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"Legal context","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"3 In Belgium, tax on the income of natural and legal persons is governed by the Income Tax Code 1992 ( Moniteur belge of 30 July 1992), the first paragraph of Article 341 of which, in the version in force at the time of the events in the main\n proceedings, provides:","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"‘Failing evidence to the contrary, the assessment of the tax base, for legal as well as natural persons, may be made on the\n basis of signs or indications that the level of economic well-being enjoyed is higher than the level accounted for by the\n income declared.’","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"4 Article 342 of the Code states:","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"‘1. In the absence of evidence provided by the interested parties, or by the administration, the profits or earnings referred\n to in points (1) and (2) of Article 23(1) shall be determined, for each taxpayer, by reference to the normal profits or earnings\n of at least three similar taxpayers and hav …","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"2. The King shall lay down, having regard to the factors indicated in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1, the minimum taxable\n profits of foreign undertakings operating in Belgium.’","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"5 Article 182 of the Royal Decree of 27 August 1993 implementing the Income Tax Code 1992 ( Moniteur belge of 13 September 1993) (‘the Royal Decree of 27 August 1993’) provides:","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"‘1. The minimum taxable profits of foreign undertakings operating in Belgium which are taxable in accordance with the comparison‑based\n procedure laid down in the first subparagraph of Article 342(1) of the Income Tax Code 1992 shall be as follows:","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"(3) undertakings in the commercial and services sectors:","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"(a) … horeca [(hospitality sector: hotels, restaurants and cafeterias)] …: [BEF] 100 per [BEF] 1 000 turnover, subject to a minimum\n of [BEF] 300 000 per employee (average number for the year under review);","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"…","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"2. In no case may the amount of the taxable profits determined in accordance with paragraph 1 be less than [BEF] 400 000.","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"…’","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"6 Under Article 24(5) of the Convention between Belgium and Luxembourg for the prevention of double taxation and the resolution\n of a number of other problems regarding taxes on income and wealth, signed at Luxembourg on 17 September 1970 (‘the Double\n Taxation Convention’):","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"‘Where an undertaking of one contracting State has a fixed establishment in the other contracting State, the latter State\n may not determine the taxation of that undertaking in a manner less favourable than the taxation of domestic undertakings\n engaged in the same activity.’","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"7 Mr Talotta is resident in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and runs a restaurant in Belgium in his capacity as a natural person.","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"8 Since Mr Talotta has not established his tax domicile in Belgian territory, he is a taxable person in Belgium – for the purposes\n of the tax on non‑resident natural persons – solely in respect of income earned in that Member State.","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"9 Mr Talotta was late in submitting his tax return for the 1992 tax year for the purposes of the tax on non‑resident natural\n persons and, consequently, the Belgian tax authorities notified him that they intended to apply that tax to him automatically,\n pursuant to Article 342(2) of the Income Tax C …","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"10 On the basis of that legislation, the Belgian tax authorities charged Mr Talotta tax on non‑resident physical persons for\n the 1992 tax year, calculated on the basis of six members of staff.","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"11 By decision of 23 June 1998, those authorities rejected Mr Talotta’s complaint against that charge.","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"12 Mr Talotta challenged that decision before the Cour d’appel (Court of Appeal), Liège, which dismissed the action by judgment\n of 16 June 2004.","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"13 In his appeal before the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) Mr Talotta asserted, by the first part of his first ground\n of appeal, that the Cour d’appel, Liège, had failed properly to state the reasons for the judgment under appeal, contrary\n to Article 149 of the Belgian Constitution, in so …","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"14 After dismissing the first part of the first ground of appeal as having no factual basis, the Cour de cassation decided, in\n respect of the second part of the first ground of appeal, to stay proceedings pending a preliminary ruling from the Court\n of Justice on the following question:","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"‘Is … Article 52 … of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as prohibiting a provision of national law, such as Article 182 of the\n Royal Decree of 27 August 1993, implementing Article 342(2) of the Income Tax Code 1992, whereby minimum tax bases are applied\n only in the case of non‑residents?’","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"The question referred for preliminary ruling","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"15 By its question, the referring court asks essentially whether Article 52 of the Treaty precludes legislation of a Member State,\n such as the rule resulting from Article 342(2) of the Income Tax Code 1992 and Article 182 of the Royal Decree of 27 August 1993,\n which lays down minimum tax bases only for non‑resident taxpayers.","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"16 The first point to be made is that, although direct taxation falls within their competence, the Member States must none the\n less exercise that competence consistently with Community law (Case C‑319/02 Manninen [2004] ECR I‑7477, paragraph 19 and the case‑law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"17 The rules regarding equal treatment forbid not only overt discrimination by reason of nationality but also all covert forms\n of discrimination which, by the application of other criteria of differentiation, lead in fact to the same result (Case C‑279/93\n Schumacker [1995] ECR I‑225, paragraph 26 and the case‑law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"18 Discrimination can arise only through the application of different rules to comparable situations or the application of the\n same rule to different situations ( Schumacker , paragraph 30, and Case C‑391/97 Gschwind [1999] ECR I‑5451, paragraph 21).","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"19 In relation to direct taxation, the Court has accepted, in cases relating to taxation of the income of natural persons, that\n the situation of residents and the situation of non-residents in a given State are not generally comparable, since there are\n objective differences between them, both from …","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"20 In that respect, it should be pointed out that, according to the documents before the Court, Article 342(1) of the Income\n Tax Code 1992 is designed to regulate situations in which the taxpayer, resident or non‑resident, has not provided the tax\n authorities with evidence regarding his profits or earnings.","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"21 As regards resident taxpayers, it is also clear from the documents before the Court that the Belgian tax authorities may,\n in accordance with the criteria laid down in Article 342(1) of the Income Tax Code 1992, determine the profits to be taken\n into consideration by analogy with the normal profits of at least three similar resident tax payers.","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"22 In the event that it is impossible to use that method for determining the profits, the documents before the Court also show\n that the authorities may, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 341 of the Code, apply – in the case of resident\n taxpayers only – the flat-rate method of taxation on the basis of ‘signs or indications that the level of economic well-being\n enjoyed is higher than that accounted for by the income declared’.","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"23 The turnover of non‑resident taxpayers, on the other hand, must, in the absence of evidence, be determined by applying the\n minimum tax bases.","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"24 It must therefore be held that the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings treats taxpayers differently according\n to whether or not they are resident in Belgium.","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"25 It cannot be accepted that the Member State of establishment may apply minimum tax bases solely to non‑resident taxpayers\n merely by reason of the fact that their tax residence is situated in another Member State, without depriving Article 52 of\n the Treaty of all meaning (see, by analogy, Case 270/83 Commission v France [1986] ECR 273, paragraph 18).","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"26 In fact, the income received by a resident taxpayer in the context of a self-employed activity in the territory of the Member\n State concerned and the income acquired by a non‑resident taxpayer also in the context of a self-employed activity carried\n out in the territory of that Member State are in the same category of income, that is to say, income arising from self‑employed\n activities carried out in the territory of the same Member State.","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"27 The Belgian Government asserts in support of its contentions that there are objective differences between the situation of\n residents and the situation of non‑residents as regards the means of proof available to the tax authorities for the purposes\n of establishing the base of the taxable income. …","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"28 As the Advocate General pointed out at point 70 of his Opinion, in cases where a part of their operations is carried out in\n the territory of a Member State other than that in which they carry out their self-employed activities, a resident taxpayer\n and a non‑resident taxpayer present, for the tax authorities concerned, the same difficulties, with the result that those\n two categories of taxpayers are in an objectively comparable position.","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"29 Moreover, it should be recalled that, in cases where the operations of a taxpayer are carried out in part in the territory\n of a Member State other than that in which he carries out his self-employed activity, a Member State may rely on Directive 77/799\n in order to obtain from the competent auth …","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"30 Consequently, it must be held that, for the purposes of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, resident\n taxpayers and non‑resident taxpayers are in an objectively comparable situation.","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"31 That interpretation is in no way weakened by the Belgian Government’s observation that the minimum tax bases provided for\n in the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings are often more favourable to non‑resident taxpayers than the\n comparison‑based taxation applied to resident taxpa …","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"32 In those circumstances, legislation of a Member State, such as the rule resulting from Article 342(2) of the Income Tax Code 1992\n and Article 182 of the Royal Decree of 27 August 1993, which lays down minimum tax bases only for non‑resident taxpayers constitutes\n indirect discrimination on groun …","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"33 It is necessary therefore to consider whether that discrimination may be justified.","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"34 The Belgian Government contends that the application of the minimum tax bases only to non-resident taxpayers is justified\n by the need to ensure the effectiveness of fiscal supervision and that it is consistent with the principle of proportionality.\n It states that the comparison-based method of …","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"35 In that respect, it must be pointed out that the effectiveness of fiscal supervision constitutes an overriding requirement\n of general interest capable of justifying a restriction on the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty (see,\n to that effect, Case C‑254/97 Baxter and Others [1999] ECR I‑4809, paragraph 18 and the case‑law cited).","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"36 However, as appears from paragraph 28 of this judgment, the difficulties of a practical nature on which the Belgian Government\n relies apply in the same way to resident taxpayers and, as appears from paragraph 29, it is open to the Member State concerned,\n on the basis of Directive 77/799, to enter into an exchange of information with other Member States.","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"37 It follows that the need to guarantee the effectiveness of fiscal supervision does not justify a difference in treatment,\n and the treatment applied to non‑resident taxpayers must therefore be identical to that provided for resident taxpayers.","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"38 Having regard to all of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred must be that Article 52 of the Treaty precludes\n legislation of a Member State, such as the rule resulting from Article 342(2) of the Income Tax Code 1992 and Article 182\n of the Royal Decree of 27 August 1993, which lays down minimum tax bases only for non‑resident taxpayers.","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"Costs","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"39 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court,\n the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs\n of those parties, are not recoverable.","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules:","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) precludes legislation of a Member State, such as the rule\n resulting from Article 342(2) of the Income Tax Code 1992 and Article 182 of the Royal Decree of 27 August 1993 implementing\n the Income Tax Code 1992, which lays down minimum tax bases only for non‑resident taxpayers.","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"[Signatures]","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"* Language of the case: French.","paragraph_id":"para_93"}],"operative_part":"On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) hereby rules:\n\nArticle 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) precludes legislation of a Member State, such as the rule\n resulting from Article 342(2) of the Income Tax Code 1992 and Article 182 of the Royal Decree of 27 August 1993 implementing\n the Income Tax Code 1992, which lays down minimum tax bases only for non‑resident taxpayers.\n\n* Language of the case: French.","word_count":3373,"cites":["C-319/02","C-279/93","C-391/97","C-80/94","C-107/94","C-422/01","C-141/99","C-254/97"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"4f4d4e30e79aa939f4c7e778736b2c22d9ce17d9512fb9cd0369043e9e0db1e8","source_url":"https://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62005CJ0383","fetched_at":"2026-10-02T20:17:28.191+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/eu/c-383-05","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-383-05","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-383-05","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-383-05"},"hash":"sha256:03708302c2b7f1ec9be95f44c70d0d2c4570f5b9172e76bc7af7e48c768b7c63","version":"legal-2026-10-13","expires":"2026-10-14T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-13+legal-2026-10-13+2026-10-13T12:55:18","content_hash":"sha256:03708302c2b7f1ec9be95f44c70d0d2c4570f5b9172e76bc7af7e48c768b7c63","revalidate_after":"2026-10-13T14:23:23.796Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu:c-383-05","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=eu:c-383-05"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=eu:c-383-05"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/eu-praxis/agent?id=eu:c-383-05"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=eu"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/eu/praxis/c-383-05","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-e9d92bd3c1934ee2d349c38f47719bcf","response_hash":"sha256:03708302c2b7f1ec9be95f44c70d0d2c4570f5b9172e76bc7af7e48c768b7c63"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"stable","as_of":"2026-11-03T06:07:24.849Z","valid_for":604800,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=eu%3Ac-383-05","note":"Oföränderligt objekt med hash. Får cachas länge.","tokens":7755}}