# C_2022051EN.01000201.xml

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 25 November 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative — Luxembourg) — État luxembourgeois v L

(Case C-437/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Administrative cooperation in the field of taxation - Directive 2011/16/EU - Article 1(1), Article 5 and Article 20(2) - Request for information - Decision ordering that information be provided - Refusal to comply with the order - Penalty - ‘Foreseeable relevance’ of the requested information - Absence of identification of the taxpayers concerned individually and by name - Concept of ‘identity of the person under examination or investigation’ - Statement of reasons of the request for information - Scope - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy against the decision ordering that information be provided - Article 52(1) - Limitation - Respect for the essence of the right)

(2022/C 51/02)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: État luxembourgeois

Respondent: L

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 1(1), Article 5 and Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a request for information must be regarded as relating to information which does not appear to be manifestly devoid of any foreseeable relevance, where the persons under examination or investigation within the meaning of that latter provision are not identified individually and by name by that request but the requesting authority provides a clear and sufficient explanation that it is conducting a targeted investigation into a limited group of persons, justified by reasonable suspicions of non-compliance with a specific legal obligation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 1(1), Article 5 and Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2011/16/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that a request for information must be regarded as relating to information which does not appear to be manifestly devoid of any foreseeable relevance, where the persons under examination or investigation within the meaning of that latter provision are not identified individually and by name by that request but the requesting authority provides a clear and sufficient explanation that it is conducting a targeted investigation into a limited group of persons, justified by reasonable suspicions of non-compliance with a specific legal obligation.

| 2. | Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that a person holding information who:






  — | has had an administrative financial penalty imposed on him or her for failure to comply with an information order in the context of an exchange between national tax authorities pursuant to Directive 2011/16, where that order is itself not open to challenge under the domestic law of the requested Member State, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that a person holding information who:

—

has had an administrative financial penalty imposed on him or her for failure to comply with an information order in the context of an exchange between national tax authorities pursuant to Directive 2011/16, where that order is itself not open to challenge under the domestic law of the requested Member State, and

| — | has contested the legality of that order indirectly in an action against the decision imposing a penalty for failure to comply with that order, having thus obtained disclosure of the minimum information referred to in Article 20(2) of that directive in the course of the judicial proceedings relating to that action, |
| --- | --- |

—

has contested the legality of that order indirectly in an action against the decision imposing a penalty for failure to comply with that order, having thus obtained disclosure of the minimum information referred to in Article 20(2) of that directive in the course of the judicial proceedings relating to that action,

must, following the definitive recognition of the legality of that order and that decision issued against him or her, be given the opportunity to comply with the information order within the time limit initially prescribed for that purpose by national law, without that entailing the continued application of the penalty which that person had to incur in order to exercise his or her right to an effective remedy. It is only if that person does not comply with that order within that time limit that the penalty imposed would legitimately become payable.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 12.8.2019.

---