This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62019CN0437
Case C-437/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 31 May 2019 — State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v L
Case C-437/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 31 May 2019 — State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v L
Case C-437/19: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 31 May 2019 — State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v L
OJ C 270, 12.8.2019, p. 23–23
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
12.8.2019 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 270/23 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 31 May 2019 — State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v L
(Case C-437/19)
(2019/C 270/26)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Cour administrative
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Defendant: L
Questions referred
1. |
Must Article 20(2)(a) of Directive 2011/16 (1) be interpreted as meaning that where a request for exchange of information formulated by an authority of a requesting Member State designates the taxpayers to which it relates simply by reference to their status as shareholders and beneficial owners of a company, without those taxpayers having been identified by the requesting authority in advance, individually and by name, the request satisfies the identification requirements laid down by that provision? |
2. |
If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, must Article 1(1) and Article 5 of that directive be interpreted as meaning that the standard of foreseeable relevance may be met, if the requesting Member State, in order to establish that it is not engaged in a fishing expedition, despite the fact that it has not individually identified the taxpayers concerned, provides a clear and sufficient explanation evidencing that it is conducting a targeted investigation into a limited group of persons, and not simply an investigation by way of general fiscal surveillance, and that its investigation is justified by reasonable suspicions of non-compliance with a specific legal obligation? |
3. |
Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that, where
that person is entitled, in the event of a definitive incidental finding upholding the validity of the decision requiring the requested information and of the decision imposing a fine on him, to a period of grace for the payment of that fine, so that he has an opportunity, having thus been given disclosure of the material supporting the contention — definitively accepted by the competent court — that the test of foreseeable relevance is met, to comply with the decision requiring the requested information? |
(1) Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC (OJ 2011 L 64, p. 1).