Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 1/2022 on the CJEU Decision of 25 November 2021 in case C-437/19, état luxembourgeois v L, on the conditions for information requests and taxpayer remedies

The CFE Tax Advisers Europe welcomes the judgment of the Court as it provides further clarification on the legal protection of the information holders afforded by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in cases of cross-border exchange of information. Article 47 of the Charter guarantees that national courts can review the cross-border information request in order to assess its legality and also that the information holder must be able to ascertain the reasons upon which the order they receive is based. Moreover, the CFE Tax Advisers Europe welcomes the illuminat... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Nogueira, João Félix Pinto
Prats, Francisco Alfredo Garcia
Haslehner, Werner C.
Heydt, Volker
Kemmeren, Eric
Kofler, Georg
Lang, Michael
Panayi, Christiana HJI
Blétière, Emmanuel Raingeard de la
Raventos-Calvo, Stella
Richelle, Isabelle
Rust, Alexander
Shiers, Rupert
Dokumenttyp: workingPaper
Erscheinungsdatum: 2022
Verlag/Hrsg.: SSRN
Schlagwörter: Taxation / Tax law / European taxation / Exchange of information / OECD
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-27519787
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://ciencia.ucp.pt/en/publications/71084455-062c-4183-97a3-fa5fc8477c02

The CFE Tax Advisers Europe welcomes the judgment of the Court as it provides further clarification on the legal protection of the information holders afforded by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in cases of cross-border exchange of information. Article 47 of the Charter guarantees that national courts can review the cross-border information request in order to assess its legality and also that the information holder must be able to ascertain the reasons upon which the order they receive is based. Moreover, the CFE Tax Advisers Europe welcomes the illumination regarding the concept of “foreseeable relevance”, but also notes that additional clarification will be needed to distinguish permissible group requests from illegal “fishing expeditions”.