Reference : Luxembourg: Exchange of Information and EU Fundamental Rights (C-682/15, Berlioz Inve...
Parts of books : Contribution to collective works
Law, criminology & political science : Tax law
Law, criminology & political science : European & international law
Law / European Law
http://hdl.handle.net/10993/31993
Luxembourg: Exchange of Information and EU Fundamental Rights (C-682/15, Berlioz Investment Fund S.A.)
English
Haslehner, Werner mailto [University of Luxembourg > Faculty of Law, Economics and Finance (FDEF) > Law Research Unit >]
2017
CJEU – Recent Developments in Direct Taxation 2016
Lang, Michael
Pistone, Pasquale
Rust, Alexander
Schuch, Josef
Staringer, Claus
Storck, Alfred
Linde Verlag
Series on International Tax Law Vol. 103
97-116
Yes
978-3-7073-3697-9
Vienna
Austria
[en] Exchange of Information ; Fundamental Rights ; Effective Remedy ; Foreseeable relevance
[en] The present case concerns the question of whether the right to an effective remedy — as guaranteed in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — means that a Member State must allow a company to challenge an order requesting information for the purposes of the tax assessment of another party in a court that would have unlimited authority to review the legitimacy of that order, including the “foreseeable relevance” of the original request made by another Member State. The case has the potential to provide a crucial piece in the legal puzzle that surrounds exchange of information in tax matters in the triangle of domestic law, tax treaty law and EU law, with particular emphasis on the protection of taxpayer (and related party) rights. However, due to the actual circumstances of the case, it does not appear likely that the CJEU will address all of the questions asked by Luxembourg’s Cour administrative. In particular, the meaning of “foreseeable relevance” under Directive 2011/16 may be seen as having little relevance for the outcome of the case in light of the broad meaning given to it by Luxembourg’s statute so that the CJEU may leave it unresolved even if it agrees with the domestic court on the application of Article 47 of the Charter.
Researchers ; Professionals ; Students
http://hdl.handle.net/10993/31993

File(s) associated to this reference

Fulltext file(s):

FileCommentaryVersionSizeAccess
Limited access
Berlioz Comment - CJEU Cases 2016.pdfPublisher postprint3.15 MBRequest a copy

Bookmark and Share SFX Query

All documents in ORBilu are protected by a user license.