Legal Professional Privilege and the Validity of Certain Provisions of DAC6 in light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union -Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 1/2025 on the CJEU Decision of 8 December 2022 in Orde van Vlaamse Balies (Case C-694/20) and of 29 July 2024 in Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers (Case C-623/22) - 2025
Legal Professional Privilege and the Validity of Certain Provisions of DAC6 in light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union -Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 1/2025 on the CJEU Decision of 8 December 2022 in Orde van Vlaamse Balies (Case C-694/20) and of 29 July 2024 in Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers (Case C-623/22)
Kofler, Georg; Garcia Prats, Francisco Alfredo; Haslehner, Werner Christofet al.
Droit fiscal européen -; Secret professionnel - DAC6 - European tax law - legal privilege - charter of fundamental rights
Abstract :
[en] "This Opinion Statement focuses on questions of law and the scope of legal professional privilege as a waiver to the disclosure obligations established by DAC for fiscal intermediaries. The Statement also seeks to explain and analyse the CJEU’s reasoning regarding the scope of the invalidity and the justification of the validity of certain aspects of DAC6."
Disciplines :
Tax law
Author, co-author :
Kofler, Georg
Garcia Prats, Francisco Alfredo
Haslehner, Werner Christof
Ivanovski, Aleksandar
Kemmeren, Eric
Pinto Nogueira, João Félix
Lang, Michael
HJI Panayi, Christiana
Raventos-Calvo, Stella
Richelle Graulich, Isabelle ; Université de Liège - ULiège > HEC Liège : UER > UER Finance, Comptabilité et Droit : Droit fiscal
Rust, Alexander
Language :
English
Title :
Legal Professional Privilege and the Validity of Certain Provisions of DAC6 in light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union -Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 1/2025 on the CJEU Decision of 8 December 2022 in Orde van Vlaamse Balies (Case C-694/20) and of 29 July 2024 in Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers (Case C-623/22)
Alternative titles :
[fr] Secret professionnel et validité de certaines dispositions de DAC6 à la lumière de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'UE -Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 1/2025 concernant l'arrêt de la CJUE du 8 décembre 2022 dans l'affaire Orde van Vlaamse Balies (Case C-694/20) et du 29 juillet 2024 dans l'affaire Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers (Case C-623/22)
Original title :
[en] Legal Professional Privilege and the Validity of Certain Provisions of DAC6 in light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union -Opinion Statement ECJ-TF 1/2025 on the CJEU Decision of 8 December 2022 in Orde van Vlaamse Balies (Case C-694/20) and of 29 July 2024 in Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers (Case C-623/22)
Publication date :
2025
Journal title :
European Taxation
ISSN :
0014-3138
eISSN :
2352-9199
Publisher :
International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation, Netherlands
Council Directive (EU) 2018/822 of 25 May 2018 amending Directive 2011/16/EU as regards mandatory automatic exchange of information in the field of taxation in relation to reportable cross-border arrangements, OJ L 139 (2018), Primary Sources IBFD [DAC6].
Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on Administrative Cooperation in the Field of Taxation and Repealing Directive 77/799 EEC, OJ L 64 (2011), Primary Sources IBFD [DAC].
Belgian Vlaamse Balies (C-694/20) and art 8ab(1), (5), (6) and (7) in Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers (C-623/22) Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers (C-623/22), para. 2.
BE： Opinion ofAdvocate General Emiliou, 29 Feb. 2024, Case C-623/22, Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers and Others v. Premier ministre/Eerste Minister, ECLI:EU:C:2024:189, paras. 20-37, Case Law IBFD.
Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers (C-623/22), para. 25； and AT: ECJ, 10 Feb. 2022, Case C-522/20, OEv. VK EU:C:2022:87, para. 20.
HU： ECJ, 16 Feb. 2022, Case C-156/21, Hungary v. Parliament and
Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers (C-623/22), paras. 69-73.
FR： ECtHR, 6 Dec. 2012, Michaud v. France, CE：ECHR：2012：- 1206JUD001232311, Paras. 117 and 118.
TR: ECtHR, 9 Apr. 2019, Altay v. Turkey (No 2), CE:ECHR:2019:- 0409JUD001123609, para. 49.
ECJ, 18 May 1982, Case 155/79, AM & S Europe Limited v Commission of the European Communities, EU:C:1982:157, para. 18.
OJ L 77 (14 Mar. 1998), available at https//eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex %3A31998L0005 (accessed 3 Feb. 2025).
HU： ECJ, 18 June 2020, Case C-78/18, Commission v. Hungary (Transparency of Associations), EU：C：2020：476, para. 124.
FR： ECtHR, 19 Jan. 2018, FNASS and Others v. France, CE：ECHR：2018：- 0118JUD004815111, para. 153.
FR： ECJ, 22 Oct. 2002, Case C-94/00, Roquette Freres SA v. Directeur general de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la repression des fraudes, and Commission of the European Communities.
EU：C：2002：603, para. 29.Id., para. 60. BE: ECJ, 26 June 2007, Case C-305/05, Ordre des bar- reauxfrancophones etgermanophone and Others v. Conseil des ministers, EU:C:2007:383, paras. 31-32.
BE: Opinion of Advocate General Rantos, 5 Apr. 2022, Case C-694/20, Orde van Vlaamse Balies, IG, Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers, CD, JU v. Vlaamse Regering, ECLI:EU:C:2022:259. AG Opinion in Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers (C-623/22).
LU： ECJ, 26 Sept. 2024, Case C-432/23, F and Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg v. Administration des contributions directes, ECLI：EU：C：2024：791, Case Law IBFD.
European Commission, Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union, Press Release, Evaluation of administrative cooperation in the field of direct taxation (8 May 2024), available at https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13678-Cooperation-on-direct-taxation-evaluation/public-consultation_en (accessed 18 Mar. 2025).
