Case C‑276/12

Jiří Sabou

v

Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud)

‛Directive 77/799/EEC — Mutual assistance by the authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation — Exchange of information on request — Tax proceedings — Fundamental rights — Limit on the scope of the obligations of the requesting and the requested Member States towards the taxpayer — No obligation to inform the taxpayer of the request for assistance — No obligation to invite the taxpayer to take part in the examination of witnesses — Taxpayer’s right to challenge the information exchanged — Minimum content of the information exchanged’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 22 October 2013

1. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Observance in administrative proceedings — Scope

2. Approximation of laws — Mutual assistance by the authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation — Directive 77/799 — Exchange of information on request — Scope of the obligations of the requesting and the requested Member States towards the taxpayer — No obligation to inform the taxpayer of the request for assistance or to invite the taxpayer to take part in formulating that request — No obligation to invite the taxpayer to take part in the examination of witnesses

   (Council Directive 77/799)

3. Approximation of laws — Mutual assistance by the authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation — Directive 77/799 — Exchange of information on request — No right of the taxpayer to challenge the information exchanged — No particular obligation with regard to the content of the information exchanged — Application of national procedural rules

   (Council Directive 77/799)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 28, 38)

2.  EU law, as it results in particular from Directive 77/799 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation and taxation of insurance premiums and the fundamental right to be heard, must be interpreted as not conferring on a taxpayer of a Member State either the right to be informed of a request for assistance from that Member State addressed to another Member State, in particular in order to verify the information provided by that taxpayer in his income tax return, or the right to take part in formulating the request addressed to the requested Member State, or the right to take part in examinations of witnesses organised by the requested Member State.

   In tax inspection procedures, the investigation stage, during which information is collected and which includes the request for information by one tax authority to another, must be distinguished from the contentious stage, between the tax authorities and the taxpayer, which begins when the taxpayer is sent the proposed adjustment. Since the request for assistance made by the tax authorities under Directive 77/799 is part of the process of collecting information, they are not required to notify the taxpayer of this or to obtain his point of view. The same applies to the reply made by the requested tax authorities and the inquiries carried out to that end by those authorities, including the examination of witnesses.

   (see paras 40-43, 46, operative part 1)

3.  Directive 77/799 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation and taxation of insurance premiums does not govern the question of the circumstances in which the taxpayer may challenge the accuracy of the information conveyed by the requested Member State, and it does not impose any particular obligation with regard to the content of the information conveyed.

   In those circumstances, only national laws can lay down the relevant rules. The taxpayer may challenge the information concerning him conveyed to the tax authorities of the requesting Member State in accordance with the rules and procedures applicable in the Member State in question.

   (see paras 49, 50, operative part 2)

Case C‑276/12

Jiří Sabou

v

Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší správní soud)

‛Directive 77/799/EEC — Mutual assistance by the authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation — Exchange of information on request — Tax proceedings — Fundamental rights — Limit on the scope of the obligations of the requesting and the requested Member States towards the taxpayer — No obligation to inform the taxpayer of the request for assistance — No obligation to invite the taxpayer to take part in the examination of witnesses — Taxpayer’s right to challenge the information exchanged — Minimum content of the information exchanged’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 22 October 2013

1. EU law — Principles — Rights of defence — Observance in administrative proceedings — Scope

2. Approximation of laws — Mutual assistance by the authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation — Directive 77/799 — Exchange of information on request — Scope of the obligations of the requesting and the requested Member States towards the taxpayer — No obligation to inform the taxpayer of the request for assistance or to invite the taxpayer to take part in formulating that request — No obligation to invite the taxpayer to take part in the examination of witnesses

   (Council Directive 77/799)

3. Approximation of laws — Mutual assistance by the authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and indirect taxation — Directive 77/799 — Exchange of information on request — No right of the taxpayer to challenge the information exchanged — No particular obligation with regard to the content of the information exchanged — Application of national procedural rules

   (Council Directive 77/799)

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 28, 38)

2.  EU law, as it results in particular from Directive 77/799 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation and taxation of insurance premiums and the fundamental right to be heard, must be interpreted as not conferring on a taxpayer of a Member State either the right to be informed of a request for assistance from that Member State addressed to another Member State, in particular in order to verify the information provided by that taxpayer in his income tax return, or the right to take part in formulating the request addressed to the requested Member State, or the right to take part in examinations of witnesses organised by the requested Member State.

   In tax inspection procedures, the investigation stage, during which information is collected and which includes the request for information by one tax authority to another, must be distinguished from the contentious stage, between the tax authorities and the taxpayer, which begins when the taxpayer is sent the proposed adjustment. Since the request for assistance made by the tax authorities under Directive 77/799 is part of the process of collecting information, they are not required to notify the taxpayer of this or to obtain his point of view. The same applies to the reply made by the requested tax authorities and the inquiries carried out to that end by those authorities, including the examination of witnesses.

   (see paras 40-43, 46, operative part 1)

3.  Directive 77/799 concerning mutual assistance by the competent authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation and taxation of insurance premiums does not govern the question of the circumstances in which the taxpayer may challenge the accuracy of the information conveyed by the requested Member State, and it does not impose any particular obligation with regard to the content of the information conveyed.

   In those circumstances, only national laws can lay down the relevant rules. The taxpayer may challenge the information concerning him conveyed to the tax authorities of the requesting Member State in accordance with the rules and procedures applicable in the Member State in question.

   (see paras 49, 50, operative part 2)