# C_2019270EN.01002301.xml

| 12.8.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

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? |
| --- | --- |

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? |
| --- | --- |

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






  — | a person who has had imposed upon him by the competent authority of a Member State an administrative financial penalty for non-compliance with an administrative decision, requiring him to provide information in connection with an exchange of information between national tax authorities pursuant to Directive 2011/16, where the national law of the requested Member State does not make provision for an action to be brought against the latter decision, and where the person concerned has challenged the legality of that decision within an action brought against the financial penalty, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Must Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that, where

—

a person who has had imposed upon him by the competent authority of a Member State an administrative financial penalty for non-compliance with an administrative decision, requiring him to provide information in connection with an exchange of information between national tax authorities pursuant to Directive 2011/16, where the national law of the requested Member State does not make provision for an action to be brought against the latter decision, and where the person concerned has challenged the legality of that decision within an action brought against the financial penalty, and

| — | has only obtained disclosure of the minimal information referred to in Article 20(2) of Directive 2011/16 in the course of the judicial procedure set in motion by the bringing of that action, |
| --- | --- |

—

has only obtained disclosure of the minimal information referred to in Article 20(2) of Directive 2011/16 in the course of the judicial procedure set in motion by the bringing of that action,

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).

---