COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT for the evaluation of the use of mutual tax recovery assistance on the basis of Directive 2010/24/EU by the EU Member States Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the operation of the arrangements established by Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures
Date: 2017-12-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, European tax cooperation, administrative cooperation, claim, exchange of information, tax authorities, tax collection, tax law, tax offence

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 18.12.2017  SWD(2017) 461 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT for the evaluation of the use of mutual tax recovery assistance on the basis of Directive 2010/24/EU by the EU Member States Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council  on the operation of the arrangements established by Council Directive 2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures  {COM(2017) 778 final}  
 
 
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This staff working document on the evaluation of the use of the EU framework for tax recovery 
assistance accompanies the Commission's report to the European Parliament and the Council, 
presented in accordance with Article 27 of Directive 2010/24. It examines to which extent the 
overall  objective  of  this  Directive,  to  better  safeguard  the  financial  interests  of  the  Member 
States and of the EU, has been met (points 2 and 3).  

The evaluation questions relate to the effectiveness, the efficiency, the relevance, the coherence 
and the EU added-value of this EU framework (point 4.1.).  

The  evaluation  is  based  on  the  comments  and  responses  provided  by  the  Member  States'  tax 
authorities, the responses provided in a public consultation, the yearly statistics on the use of 
this  EU  framework,  questions  raised  in  the  Recovery  Expert  Group  meetings  and  in  Fiscalis 
2020  activities  and  on  some  external  reports  (point  4.2.).  The  nature  of  the  Directive  - 
providing the legal base and technical tools allowing Member States to assist each other in the 
recovery of claims, without setting the national recovery rules  – makes it difficult to quantify 
the burden linked to the recovery assistance. This burden is largely influenced by the costs and 
the  workload  involved  in  national  recovery  processes.  Moreover,  each  recovery  case  is 
different  and  depends  on  the  particular  circumstances  of  the  claim.  The  evaluation  therefore 
only gathered (some) evidence on the costs and burdens within the limitations of the Directive's 
application and reflecting individual experiences of the recovery officials. That information is 
duly analysed in the present report. However, any extrapolation allowing an EU-level statement 
on the regulatory costs related to the Directive is not possible. 

Although  this  Directive  had  to  be  implemented  by  31  December  2011,  many  Member  States 
were late in transposing the Directive (point 5). 

The amounts recovered on the basis of the EU Directive continued to increase (point 6.1.1.1.).  

The  statistical  data  that  are  made  available  to  the  Commission  do  not  permit  to  draw  clear 
conclusions  with  regard  to  the  recovery  ratio.  However,  an  approximative  estimation  shows 
that the differences in the Member States' recovery results are considerable (point 6.1.1.2.). 

Specific  factors  are  influencing  the  recovered  amounts:  the  increase  of  recovery  assistance 
requests; the reported lack of resources and efforts for recovery assistance; and loopholes in the 
national means for tax recovery (point 6.1.1.3.). 

It  is  generally  considered  that  the  Directive  has  helped  Member  States  to  create  a  deterrent 
effect towards non-compliance. However, this effect cannot really be measured (point 6.1.2.1.).  

The  uniform  procedural  tools  (i.e.  the  electronic  request  forms,  the  uniform  instrument 
permitting  enforcement  in  the  requested  Member  State  (UIPE)  and  the  uniform  notification 
form  (UNF)  are  appreciated  by  the  Member  States  as  well  as  by  the  few  respondents  to  the 
public consultation. It is considered that these tools improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 
recovery assistance for both the applicant and the requested authority. The use of these e-forms 
and uniform instruments is also generally considered to have a positive effect on reducing the 
workload  and  administrative  costs  for  the  Member  States  concerned  (points  6.2.1.  –  6.2.2.), 
notwithstanding  the  increase  of  assistance  requests  (requests  for  information,  requests  for 
notification and requests for recovery or precautionary measures) (point 6.2.3.1. – 6.2.3.2.).  

1 

 
 
So  far,  Member  States  did  not  make  use  of  the  possibilities  for  officials  of  the  applicant 
Member State to be present during administrative enquiries – or to participate in such enquiries 
– or to assist during court proceedings in the requested Member State (point 6.2.3.3.). 
The Fiscalis 20201 activities facilitated the cooperation, as they enabled direct contacts between 
competent  authorities.  The  discussions  in  these  activities  also  permitted  to  develop  the 
electronic  forms,  to  provide  training  to  the  national  officials  and  to  discuss  problems  and 
suggestions for improving tax recovery and tax recovery assistance (point 6.2.3.4.). 

Directive  2010/24  helps  to  achieve  the  main  priorities  of  Member  States:  to  improve  the 
revenue collection, reducing tax fraud and evasion, and reducing the administrative burden and 
costs related to recovery assistance. The mechanism of the EU Directive is considered to permit 
a  much  more  efficient  recovery  assistance  than  other  agreements.  Given  the  priority  of  the 
Directive and its broad material scope, there is only little use of other agreements for recovery 
assistance between Member States (points 6.3.1.1. – 6.3.1.3.). 

The  broadening  of  the  scope  of  this  Directive  –  to  all  taxes  and  duties  levied  by  or  in  the 
Member States – was appreciated by the Member States, although most requests still relate to 
the main categories of VAT and income taxes (point 6.3.1.4.). Several suggestions have been 
made to further extend the scope of the Directive to other claims; to reinforce the possibilities 
with  regard  to  requests  for  information,  automated  and  spontaneous  exchange  of  information 
and access to databases in other Member States; to clarify some notification issues; to further 
facilitate the use of precautionary measures; to simplify conditions with regard to the obligation 
to provide assistance; to permit the use of the electronic request forms and the communication 
network in relations with third countries, etc. (points 6.3.2.1. – 6.3.2.2.). 

When providing recovery assistance, Member States have to respect the legal protection of the 
debtor (point 6.3.3.1.).  

The uniform instruments (UIPE and UNF) are considered to provide sufficient information to 
the  debtors  in  the  phase  of  recovery  assistance.  In  order  to  ensure  that  the  debtor  is  properly 
informed in a language that he understands, the Commission services also put other common 
forms at the disposal of the Member States (point 6.3.3.2.). 

The Commission services  provide guidance  on the functioning of the EU recovery assistance 
framework, through information published on the Commission website (point 6.3.3.3.). 

Tax  recovery  assistance  is  considered  to  be  in  the  interest  of  all  Member  States,  despite  the 
unequal use and unequal workload (point 6.4.1.1.).  

In  general,  the  competent  authorities  respect  the  principle  of  loyal  cooperation  between  EU 
Member States (point 6.4.1.2.). 

EU  tax  recovery  assistance  appears  to  be  indispensable  for  the  proper  functioning  of  the 
internal market, and Member States are encouraged to make sure that the recovery assistance 
framework is effectively used (point 6.4.2.1.). 

It  is  considered  that  the  joint  EU  approach  in  tax  recovery  presents  many  advantages  over 
individual  Member  States'  actions  to  conclude  bilateral  or  multilateral  assistance  agreements. 
The harmonised arrangements, the common request forms and the uniform instruments (UIPE 
and UNF) considerably facilitate the work for the competent authorities (point 6.4.2.2.). 

1   Fiscalis 2020 is an EU cooperation programme enabling national tax administrations to create and exchange 
information:  https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/fiscalis-

information  and  expertise.  See  for  more 
programme/fiscalis-2020-programme_en. 

2 

 
                                                            
 
Finally, it is pointed out that the EU tax recovery assistance is coherent with the global strategy 
of the EU to develop and improve cooperation between Member States (point 6.4.2.3.). 

2. INTRODUCTION 

On 7 April 2016, the Commission presented a Communication to the European Parliament, the 
Council  and  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  on  an  action  plan  on  VAT 
(document COM(2016)148; Towards a single EU VAT Area – Time to decide). In this action 
plan,  the  Commission  observed  that  tackling  the  VAT  gap  calls  for  urgent  actions  on  three 
fronts:  enhancing  administrative  cooperation,  collectively  improving  the  performance  of 
European tax administrations and improving voluntary compliance. These actions also imply a 
need  to  use  and  strengthen  mutual  assistance  for  the  recovery  of  tax  debts,  as  effective 
collection  of  VAT  is  a  cornerstone  of  the  fight  against  fraud.  Therefore,  the  Commission 
announced  an  evaluation  of  the  use  of  the  current  provisions  on  mutual  recovery  assistance, 
which relate to VAT but also to all other types of taxes.2  

This  current  framework  for  recovery  assistance  with  regard  to  VAT,  and  with  regard  to  all 
other taxes and duties of any kind levied by or on behalf of a Member State or its territorial or 
administrative  subdivisions,  or  on  behalf  of  the  Union,  is  laid  down  in  Council  Directive 
2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010. 

The  purpose  of  this  evaluation  is  to  assess  whether  and  to  what  extent  Council  Directive 
2010/24/EU of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating 
to  taxes,  duties  and  other  measures,  and  its  implementation  by  the  EU  Member  States  have 
made the recovery assistance more efficient and effective.  

It will also assess to what extent this recovery assistance needs to/can be improved, and make 
recommendations  to  take  account  of  the  current  needs  of  the  Member  States  and  the  internal 
market in a quickly changing economic and political environment. 

3. BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE 

3.1. Situation prior to Council Directive 2010/24/EU 

Arrangements  for  mutual  recovery  assistance  were  first  set  out  in  Council  Directive 
76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from 
operations  forming  part  of  the  system  of  financing  the  European  Agricultural  Guidance  and 
Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties. The scope of this assistance 
framework was gradually extended to VAT, excise duties, income taxes and taxes on insurance 

2   Doc. COM(2016)148, p. 7, https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/com_2016_148_en.pdf. 

See also point 7 of the 20 measures announced by the Commission in order to tackle the VAT gap, 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/resources/documents/taxation/tax_cooperation/vat_ga
p/2016-03_20_measures_en.pdf. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
premiums.3 All other taxes and duties, levied by or on behalf of a Member State or its territorial 
or  administrative  subdivisions  were  still  outside  the  scope.  This  was  at  the  detriment  of  the 
financial interests of the Member States and the neutrality of the internal market. 

The  execution  of  a  continuously  increasing  number  of  assistance  requests  under  the  former 
Directive entailed a considerable burden for the requested Member States, as the efficiency and 
effectiveness of the former framework was not optimal. 

In  the  past,  there  were  no  electronic  request  forms  with  automatic  translation  of  pre-defined 
text  fields.  There  were  also  problems  with  regard  to  the  recognition  and  translation  of 
instruments  emanating  from  another  Member  State,  which  constituted  a  major  cause  of  the 
inefficiency of the former arrangements for assistance. This caused delays in both the applicant 
and the requested Member State. 

There  was  no  provision  for  direct  information  exchange  between  services,  which  could  have 
made  assistance  fast  and  efficient,  and  there  was  no  legal  basis  for  exchange  of  information 
without prior request.  

The conditions for requesting recovery assistance were strict: a request for recovery assistance 
could  only  be  sent  if  the  domestic  means  of  recovery  had  been  fully  exhausted,  i.e.  if  the 
applicant authority had applied appropriate recovery procedures and the measures taken would 
not result in the payment in full of the claim (Article 7(2)(b) of Directive 2008/55/EC).  

Finally,  the  requested  Member  State  was  entitled  to  recover  its  costs  related  to  the  recovery 
from  the  debtor,  but  these  costs  could  not  be  deducted  from  the  recovered  amounts  if  a  full 
recovery  from  the  debtor  was  not  possible.  This  did  not  encourage  Member  States  to  devote 
sufficient resources to the recovery of other Member States' claims as the costs of the procedure 
would effectively be borne by the requested Member State if they could not be recovered from 
the debtor. 

3.2. Council Directive 2010/24/EU and its objectives 

The  overall  objective  of  Council  Directive  2010/24/EU  was  to  better  safeguard  the  financial 
interests  of  the  Member  States,  including  their  territorial  or  regional  subdivisions  and  the 
neutrality of the internal market. In particular, it provided for an extended scope of the recovery 
assistance  and  it  introduced  a  range  of  measures  to  facilitate  cooperation  between  the  EU 
Member  States:  it  introduced  uniform  instruments  for  notification  and  for  recovery  in  other 
Member States; it introduced a legal basis for exchange of information without prior request on 
specific  tax  refunds;  it  made  it  possible  for  tax  officials  of  a  Member  State  to  attend  or  to 
participate in  administrative  enquiries  in  another  Member  State;  it  made  it  possible  to  send  a 
request for recovery assistance, even though the domestic means of recovery were not yet fully 
exhausted, inter alia, where recourse to such procedures in the applicant Member State would 
give  rise  to  disproportionate  difficulty;  it  provided  for  clearer  and  more  precise  rules  where 
necessary, and it allowed the requested Member State to retain the costs linked to the recovery 
that it had incurred.  

3   The first EU legislation in this field was Directive 76/308, adopted on 15 March 1976. It provided for mutual 
assistance with regard to agricultural levies and customs duties. VAT claims were added by Directive 79/1071 
of 6 December 1979); harmonized excise duties were added by Directive 92/108 of 14 December 1992, and 
taxes on income and capital and taxes on insurance premiums were added by Directive 2001/44 of 15 June 
2001. Council Directive 76/308/EEC and the acts amending it were codified by Council Directive 2008/55/EC 
of 26 May 2008. 

4 

 
 
 
                                                            
4. EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND METHOD 

4.1. Evaluation questions 

The evaluation is based on the following questions: 

 

 

 

to  what  extent  has  the  Directive  contributed  to  safeguarding  financial  interests  of  the 
Member States and of the EU? (effectiveness) 
to  what  extent  have  the  standardisation  provisions  of  the  Directive  (e.g.  adoption  of  a 
uniform instrument permitting enforcement in the requested Member State (UIPE); uniform 
notification  form  (UNF);  obligation  to  communicate  electronically;  rules  on  the  use  of 
language, 
assistance? 
the 
(uniformity/efficiency/effectiveness) 
to  what  extent  the  provisions  of  the  Directive  are  relevant  to  the  needs  of  the  Member 
States? (relevance) 

effectiveness 

efficiency 

improved 

etc.) 

and 

of 

  could Member States achieve similar results without acting at the EU level and is the EU 

approach coherent? (EU added value/coherence) 

4.2. Evaluation materials 

4.2.1. Questionnaire to the tax authorities 

a.  In  order  to  gather  the  information  necessary  for  the  preparation  of  this  report,  the 
Commission  has  asked  for  the  opinion  of  the  tax  authorities  dealing  with  recovery 
assistance. All Member States have replied to an evaluation questionnaire, which was sent 
to  them  in  2015.  It  was  prepared  by  the  Commission  and  submitted  for  discussion  and 
approval of the Recovery Expert Group who also served as the Commission's contact point 
for distribution of the questionnaire. One set of replies was received per Member State and 
all  Member  States  took  part  in  the  questionnaire.  Overall  quality  and  completeness  of 
replies were satisfactory.  

b.  The overview of the Member States' answers to the questionnaire has been published on the 

Commission's website.  

4.2.2. Public consultation 

a.  An  open  public  consultation  took  place  from  30  November  2016  till  8  March  2017.  This 

was prepared by a Commission inter-service steering group. 

Though  the  public  consultation  was  announced  at  several  fora  and  repeated  at  several 
occasions, there were only a limited number of responses to this public consultation. In this 
regard, it should be noted that: 

-  

the  Directive  deals  with  the  cooperation  between  tax  authorities.  The  execution  of  a 
request (= the relationship between the tax authority and the tax debtor) is a matter of 
national law; 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- 

citizens and companies paying their tax debts never have anything to do with the use of 
this  Directive.  Recovery  assistance  is  generally  only  requested  in  cases  where  tax 
debtors deliberately refuse to pay their tax debts.  

b.  A  summary  report  of  the  responses  to  this  public  consultation  has  been  published  on  the 

Commission's website. 

4.2.3. Yearly statistics 

a.  The replies to the above consultations completed the information already available from the 
yearly statistics, which Member States have to provide in accordance with Article 27 of the 
Directive. The statistics cover the number of assistance requests and the amounts requested 
and recovered.  

The  Recovery  Committee  adopted  a  number  of  detailed  guidelines  with  regard  to  the 
calculation of the statistical data. Nevertheless, the statistical data provided by the Member 
States do not fully match. Differences can be noted, to some extent, in the numbers of the 
requests sent and received, and, to a large extent, in the requested and recovered amounts 
reported by the applicant and the requested Member States. 

The  differences  in  the  reported  amounts  can  be  partially  explained  by  several  factors: 
assistance  requests  may  lead  to  payments  directly  made  to  the  applicant  authority,  which 
are  not  always  or  not  immediately  reported  to  the  requested  authority;  the  recovered 
amounts may be imputed in a different way in case of requests concerning multiple (types 
of) claims; transfers of recovered amounts by the requested authority at the end of a year 
may  be  received  by  the  applicant  authority  in  the  next  year;  the  currency  exchange  may 
involve some cost; the effects of payment instalment plans is not taken into account in the 
statistics; and since 2012, the requested Member State is allowed to retain the amount of its 
costs  which  are  not  recovered  from  the  debtor.  However,  this  last  element  did  not  apply 
before  2012,  while  the  statistics  of  the  amounts  before  2012  also  showed  large 
discrepancies.   

Under these circumstances, the statistics give an estimation but their accuracy is not fully 
guaranteed.  

b.  The usefulness of the statistics could be improved if more statistical information would be 
collected  and  if  the  reliability  of  the  statistics  could  be  controlled.  However,  here  the 
Commission is confronted with several obstacles: 
-  

the  statistical  information  that  Member  States  have  to  provide  annually  is  listed  in 
Article  27(1)  of  Council  Directive  2010/24;  Member  States  may  provide  any  other 
information that may be useful for evaluating the provision of mutual assistance under 
this Directive (Article 27(2) of the Directive);  
in  practice,  Member  States  are reluctant  to  provide  more  statistics.  They consider  this 
would  entail  a  considerable  administrative  burden.  At  present,  the  only  additional 
statistical information provided by 27 Member States relates to the nature of the claims 
for  which  recovery  assistance  is  requested.  Additional  statistical  information  may 
consist of data related to the recovery of customs duties which are own resources for the 
EU budget; 
a  complete  assessment  of  the  use  and  the  results  of  this  recovery  assistance  would 
require  information  about  the  amounts  effectively  paid  or  recovered  (not  only  in  the 
year of the request itself), about the outcome of contestations of the claims, and about 

- 

- 

6 

 
 
the reasons for non-recovery in specific cases. In principle, the Commission itself does 
not have access to this additional information.4  

c.  The  question  about  the  extent  of  the  statistical  reporting  obligations  could  be  rediscussed 
with  the  Member  States,  taking  into  account  the administrative  burden  involved.5  On  this 
point,  it  should  be  noted  that  a  precise  estimation  of  the  recovery  ratio  is  extremely 
difficult, not only because the recovery process extends over several years. It should also be 
taken into account: 

- 

-  

- 

that  the  amounts  mentioned  in  recovery  requests  may  be  amended  at  a  later  stage, 
following  a  successful  contestation  of  the  claim  or  a  remittance  of  administrative 
penalties; 

that the amounts effectively recovered do not only depend on the recovery efforts of the 
requested  Member  State,  but  also  –  and  perhaps  more  –  on  the  willingness  and  the 
ability of the debtor to pay the claims; 

that the requested Member State may receive a request while it is not in the possibility 
(anymore)  to  take  any  recovery  measure  with  regard  to  the  debtor  concerned.  This  is 
illustrated by the following (negative) example: in 2012, DK sent a request for recovery 
assistance to BE, relating to a claim dating from 2007, concerning a tax due for the year 
2001. In 2012, the debtor concerned was not living in BE anymore, and BE could not 
recover anything anymore. This sole claim of about 2.500.000 EUR represented about 
85 % of all amounts for which DK requested BE's assistance in 2012.6 A recovery ratio 
that does not take account of such particularities of individual situations does not give a 
clear  image  of  the  efforts  and  success  of  the  requested  Member  State  in  providing 
recovery assistance; 

- 

that  errors  in  the  requests  or  in  the  collection  of  the  statistics  may  affect  the  results 
reported. 

4.2.4. Other sources 

a.  Discussions on specific questions were held within the Recovery Expert Group meetings.7  

b.  The evaluation also took account of ideas and comments expressed in several Fiscalis 2020 

project groups and workshops.   

c.  The evaluation also took account of external reports, including the following: 

4   See Article 23(2) of Directive 2010/24. 

It should however be noted that the Commission's responsibility to control EU own resources would justify its 
ability  to  check  to  which  extent  Member  States  request  mutual  assistance  for  customs  duties,  in  view  of 
assessing the Member States' responsibility for the non-recovery of customs duties in case debtors are located 
in another Member State.  

5   The Commission's intention is to integrate an automated collection of statistics in the central platform that is 
now being developed for the communication of the assistance requests. In the future, this development should 
reduce the administrative burden for the Member States and, at the same time, increase the accuracy of  the 
statistics. However, this integration can only be achieved gradually and it may not be applied to all statistical 
data. 

6   This example is mentioned in the report of the Belgian Court of Audit (p. 39, nr. 4.4.1.) (see point 4.2.4.c.). 
7   The Recovery Committee assists in the adoption of the implementing provisions (in accordance with Article 
26  of  the  Directive).  The  Recovery  Expert  Group  has  been  set  up  by  the  Commission  to  discuss  pertinent 
questions on the implementation and application of the Council Directive and the implementing provisions. 

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
 

In  October  2014,  the  Belgian  Court  of  Audit  submitted  to  the  Belgian  parliament 
(Chamber of representatives) the results of its audit on international mutual assistance 
for  tax  recovery.  The  Court  examined  whether  the  Belgian  fiscal  administration  has 
sufficient  legal  means  at  its  disposal  and  is  efficiently  organised  to  optimise  the 
international assistance for tax recovery.8 

  On  4-6  June  2009,  the  European  Association  of  Tax  Law  Professors  held  its  annual 
congress  in  Santiago  de  Compostela,  dealing  with  "mutual  assistance  and  information 
exchange".  Attention  was  paid  to  administrative  cooperation  in  general  and  also  to 
mutual  recovery  assistance.  The  congress  report  also  includes  academic  reports  of  13 
EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Luxemburg, 
the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Spain,  Sweden,  United  Kingdom).  Although  this 
conference took place before the current Directive of 2010 was adopted, the provisions 
of the former Directive which were analysed in these national reports are still in force 
today.9 

4.3. Evaluation process and matrix 

a.  The evaluation process was managed by a Commission inter-service Steering group on the 

evaluation of Council Directive 2010/24/EU.10  

b.  The evaluation covered all Member States for the entire period from the date from which 
the provisions of the Directive had to be applied in the Member States (1 January 2012).11  

c.  The following evaluation matrix has been used: 

Evaluation question 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Data sources 

6.1.1. Did the 
Directive help 
Member States to 
recover more taxes? 

6.1.1.1. Amounts 
recovered on the basis 
of the EU Directive 

statistics 

6.1. To what extent 
has the Directive 
contributed to 
safeguarding 
financial interests of 
the Member States 
and of the EU? 
(EFFECTIVENESS) 

6.1.1.2. Recovery ratio 

- statistics  

- questionnaire Member 

States 

- reports Member States 

6.1.1.3. Factors 
influencing the 

- statistics 

8   https://www.ccrek.be/EN/Publications/Fiche.html?id=d4a73b41-7692-4144-9ccf-a1767468018b. 
9   R.  SEER  and  I.  GABERT  (ed.),  Mutual  assistance  and  information  exchange  (2009  EATLP  Congress, 

Santiago de Compostela), 2010, ISBN 978-90-816475-2-6. 

10   This Commission inter-service Steering group was composed of the following directorate generals: Taxation 
and customs union (TAXUD), Budget (BUDG), Employment and social affairs (EMPL) and the Secretariat 
General (SG). 

11   Note: Croatia only joined the EU on 1 July 2013. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
recovered amounts  

- questionnaire Member 

States 

- Fiscalis activities 

- reports Member States 

- questionnaire Member 

States 

- Commission services  

- questionnaire Member 

States 

- public consultation 

- external sources (tax 

reviews and 
magazines, etc.) 

- Fiscalis activities 

- questionnaire Member 

States 

- evaluation report 
Belgian Court of 
Audit 

6.1.1.4. Other use of 
information provided 
under the Directive 
(unintended impact) 

6.1.2.1. Member 
States' view on the 
'compliance effect' 
created by the 
Directive 

6.1.2.2. Exchange of 
best practices to 
improve tax 
compliance 

6.2.1.1. Use of the 
electronic request 
forms by the applicant 
authority 

6.2.1.2. Effect of the 
adoption of the UIPE 
for the applicant 
Member State 

6.2.1.3. Effect of the 
adoption of the UNF 
for the applicant 
Member State 

6.2.1.4. Effect of the 
extension of the scope 
on the workload 

6.2.2.1. Effect of the 
adoption of the UIPE 
for the requested 
Member State 

- questionnaire Member 

States 

- questionnaire Member 

States 

- questionnaire Member 

States 

- questionnaire Member 

States 

6.2.2.2. Effect of the 

- questionnaire Member 

9 

6.1.2. Did the 
Directive help 
Member States to 
create a deterrent 
effect towards non-
compliance? 

6.2.1. Is requesting 
assistance easier than 
before? (situation of 
the applicant Member 
State) 

6.2. Did the uniform 
procedural tools 
improve the 
efficiency and 
effectiveness of 
recovery assistance? 
(UNIFORMITY, 
EFFICIENCY, 
EFFECTIVENESS) 

6.2.2. Is providing 
assistance for recovery of 
claims easier than 
before? (situation of the 
requested Member State) 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
adoption of the UNF 
for the requested 
Member State 

States 

6.2.2.3. Workload to 
handle  incoming 
requests for assistance 

- questionnaire Member 

States 

- reports Member States 

6.2.2.4. Administrative 
cost for the requested 
Member States 

- questionnaire Member 

States 

6.2.3. Did mutual 
assistance between 
the Member States 
increase? 

6.2.3.1. Evolution of the 
total numbers of 
requests for mutual 
assistance 

- statistics 

- statistics 

- statistics 

- questionnaire Member 

States 

6.2.3.2. Total number 
and size of all 
communications relating 
to assistance requests 

6.2.3.3. Presence and 
assistance of officials 
of the applicant 
Member State in the 
territory of the 
requested Member 
State 

6.2.3.4. Impact of the 
Fiscalis activities 

- questionnaire Member 

States 

6.3. To what extent 
the provisions of the 
Directive are relevant 
to the needs of the 
Member States? 
(RELEVANCE) 

6.3.1. Did the 
Directive meet the 
needs for which it 
was adopted? 

6.3.1.1. Main priorities 
of Member States with 
regard to mutual 
recovery assistance 

- Fiscalis activities 

- questionnaire Member 

States 

6.3.1.2. Problems 
encountered with the 
Directive by applicant 
Member States 

- questionnaire Member 

States 

- Recovery Expert 

Group  

6.3.1.3. Problems 
encountered with the 
Directive by requested 
Member States 

- questionnaire Member 

States 

- Recovery Expert 

Group 

6.3.1.4. Effects of the 
broadening of the 

- questionnaire Member 

States 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
scope 

- reports Member States 

6.3.2. Are there other 
needs? 

6.3.2.1. Need for a 
further extension of the 
scope? 

- questionnaire Member 

States 

- public consultation 

6.3.2.2. Other changes 
suggested 

- questionnaire Member 

States 

6.3.3.1. The legal 
protection of the tax 
debtors 

6.3.3. Did the 
introduction of the 
Directive have an 
impact on the legal 
protection of the tax 
debtors in the 
Member state? 

- public consultation 

- Recovery Expert Group 

- questionnaire Member 

States  

- public consultation 

- other sources 

6.3.3.2. Information 
about tax claims and 
assistance requests to 
the debtors 

- questionnaire Member 

States 

- public consultation 

6.3.3.3. Guidance on 
the functioning of the 
EU recovery assistance 
framework 

- questionnaire Member 

States 

- public consultation 

6.4.1.1. Effective use 
of the Directive by all 
Member States  

- statistics 

- questionnaire Member 

States 

6.4. Could Member 
States achieve similar 
results without acting 
at the EU level? (EU 
ADDED VALUE, 
COHERENCE) 

6.4.1. Is recovery 
assistance in the 
interest of all 
Member States? 

6.4.1.2. Loyal 
cooperation between 
EU Member States 

- Member States' 
requests to the 
Commission services 

6.4.2. Does the EU 
provide incentives to 
improve tax recovery 
assistance? 

6.4.2.1. EU tax 
recovery assistance: a 
cornerstone for the 
proper functioning of 
the internal market 

- external reports 

- Recovery Expert 

Group 

- Fiscalis activities 

6.4.2.2. Advantage of a 
joint EU approach in 
recovery assistance 

- questionnaire Member 

States 

- Recovery Expert Group 

- Member States reports 

6.4.2.3. Coherence of 

- other sources 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
the EU approach 

5. TRANSPOSITION OF THE DIRECTIVE 

The Member States had to transpose Council Directive 2010/24/EU by 31 December 2011, 
and these new provisions had to apply from 1 January 2012 (Article 28 of this Directive). In 
many Member States, the transposition of this Directive was delayed.  

Table  1: Overview of transposition of  Directive 2010/24/EU in  the national legislation  of 
the EU Member States: 12 

BE 
BG 
CZ 
DK 
DE 
EE 
IE 
EM 
ES 
FR 
HR 
IT 
CY 
LV 
LT 
LU 
HU 
MT 
NL 
AT 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SI 
SK 
FI 
SE 
UK 

adoption 
09.01.2012 – 21.12.2012 
07.12.2011 
20.12.2011 
07.02.2012 
07.12.2011 
23.11.2011 

10.04.2012 
30.12.2011 
25.01.2012 – 28.03.2012 
14.06.2013 
14.08.2012 
29.06.2012 
15.03.2012 
20.06.2011 
21.07.2012 
08.04.2013 
01.01.2012 
08.12.2011 
07.12.2011 
11.10.2013 – 06.11.2013 
20.12.2012 
31.08.2011 
30.04.2012 
30.11.2011 
29.12.2011 
15.12.2011 
19.07.2011 – 09.12.2011 

publication 
26.01.2012 – 28.12.2012 
16.12.2011 
30.12.2011 
08.12.2012 
13.12.2011 
13.12.2011 
16.12.2011 
11.04.2012 
31.01.2012 
27.01.2012 – 29.03.2012 
18.06.2013 
30.08.2012 
29.06.2012 
28.03.2012 
05.07.2011 
26.07.2012 
18.04.2013 
08.05.2012 
21.12.2011 
07.12.2011 
06.11.2013 – 07.11.2013 
20.12.2012 
02.09.2011 
24.05.2012 
30.12.2011 
30.12.2011 
23.12.2011 
xx.07.2011 – xx.12.2011 

Entry into force 
01.01.2012 
01.01.2012 
01.01.2012 
15.02.2012 
01.01.2012 
01.01.2012 
01.01.2012 
01.01.2012 
01.01.2012 
01.01.2012 
01.07.2013 
14.09.2012 
01.01.2012 
01.04.2012 
01.01.2012 
01.01.2012 
21.04.2013 
01.01.2012 
01.01.2012 
01.01.2012 
21.11.2013 
21.12.2012 
01.01.2012 
25.05.2012 
01.01.2012 
01.01.2012 
01.01.2012 
01.01.2012 

12   In  some  Member  States,  different  laws  were  adopted,  sometimes  at  different  levels.  In  these  situations, 

multiple dates of adoption and publication of the national laws are mentioned. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
6. ANALYSIS OF THE ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

6.1. To what extent has the Directive contributed to safeguarding financial 
interests of the Member States and of the EU? (effectiveness) 

6.1.1.  Did the Directive help Member States to recover more taxes? 

6.1.1.1. Amounts recovered on the basis of the EU Directive 

a.  A large majority of Member States (21 of 2713) reported that the mutual assistance provided 
under Directive 2010/24/EU has improved the collection and recovery of their tax claims. 
Almost  all  Member  States  (26  of  27)  reported  that  the  cooperation  has  improved  under 
Directive 2010/24/EU in terms of simplification for national administrations to provide and 
receive assistance on recovery of claims from another Member State. 

One Member State (Lithuania) held that it did not have grounds to consider that the growth 
of the annual recovered amount was linked to changes of the legal framework. In the view 
of  this  Member  State,  the  growth  of  the  recovered  amounts  was  caused  by  an  increased 
number  of  requests  sent  to  other  Member  States  (see  table  2  below).  For  2015,  the  high 
increase of amounts recovered for Lithuania was caused by a very successful outcome in 3 
cases (in which more than 410.000 € was recovered).  

Table 2: evolution of the numbers of received requests for recovery measures between EU 
Member States, on the basis of Directive 2010/24 (2011-2016): 

18000

16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

13   Croatia did not reply to the questions that focused on the impact of Directive 2010/24/EU. Given the recent 
accession  of  this  Member  State,  a  comparison  with  the  former  EU  framework  could  not  be  made  in  this 
Member State. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
It  can  indeed  be  expected  that  the  increased  number  of  requests  influenced  the  amounts 
recovered,  but  this  effect  could  only  be  achieved  if  the  Member  States  were  able to  cope 
with the increase of requests. Indirectly, the Lithuanian answer seems to confirm the feeling 
of other Member States that the new framework helped to facilitate recovery assistance. 

b.  The following table presents an overview of the global evolution of the amounts recovered 
on the basis of mutual recovery assistance under the EU Directives14, in the period 2005-
2016: 

Table 3: total amounts recovered on the basis of the EU tax recovery assistance legislation: 

      recovered  by  requested  Member  States  at  the  request  of  other  Member  States  (before 
deduction of the own costs relating to the recovery actions of the requested Member State) 
(in euro) 

      recovered by applicant Member States via requests to other Member States (in euro) 

90000000

80000000

70000000

60000000

50000000

40000000

30000000

20000000

10000000

0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

14   Directive 76/308/EEC; Directive 2008/55/EC; Directive 2010/24/EU. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Recovered by requested Member States 
at the request of other Member States 
(before deduction of the own costs) 
in € 
17.027.300 
33.879.553 
24.953.432 
32.413.847 
42.345.612 
44.320.323 
54.031.822 
30.641.451 
35.580.763 
42.839.876 
81.402.061 
76.500.163 

Recovered by applicant Member 
States via requests to other Member 
States 
in € 
19.746.635 
40.017.086 
30.736.296 
39.534.200 
31.212.023 
41.702.967 
62.475.879 
32.076.738 
41.115.223 
46.395.481 
65.711.419 
67.019.250 

2005 
2006 
2007 
2008 
2009 
2010 
2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 
2016 

b.  Following the exceptionally high amounts of recovered claims in 2011, the decrease of the 
recovered  amounts  in  2012  can  be  explained  –  at  least  to  some  extent  –  by  the  late 
implementation  of  Directive  2010/24/EU  in  many  Member  States  (see  point  5)  and  the 
workload  generated  by  the  need  for  the  competent  authorities  to  get  acquainted  with  the 
new  legislation,  the  new  procedures,  the  new  request  forms  and  the  uniform  instruments. 
The  same  reasons  also  caused  a  decrease  in  the  recovery  requests  in  the  same  year  (see 
table 2 above). However, in 2013 and 2014 the amounts recovered were again in line with 
the amounts recovered in 2010, and a further increase followed in 2015 and 2016. 

c.  In 2015, the amounts recovered on behalf of other Member States were considerably higher 
than the amounts received by the applicant  Member States. This  may be (partly15)  due to 
the  full  application  of  Article  20(1) of  Directive  2010/24/EU,  which  allows  the  requested 
Member States to deduct their own costs from the recovered amounts (insofar as these costs 
cannot be recovered from the debtors themselves) before transferring these amounts to the 
applicant Member State. 

6.1.1.2. Recovery ratio 

a.  A  clear  indication  of  the  recovery  ratio,  showing  the  relation  between  the  recovered 

amounts and the amounts for which recovery assistance is requested, is not possible.  

The previous reports to the Council and the European Parliament on the use of the former 
tax recovery assistance Directives16 contained an estimation of the global recovery ratio. In 
the past, Member States indeed provided statistics indicating the link between the recovered 
amounts  and  the  year  in  which  the  request  concerned  was  made.  This  was  important  to 
assess  the  global  recovery  ratio,  as  the  recovery  measures  taken  in  the  execution  of  a 
request  received  in  a  certain  year  do  not  produce  all  their  effects  in  the  same  year.  The 
recovery ratio can indeed only be assessed over a longer period of time.  

15   As already observed, the accuracy of the statistics is not completely guaranteed (see point 4.2.3.). 
16   Report COM(2009)451 of 4.9.2009, point 2.3.2.; Report COM(2012)58 of 15.2.2012, points 2.2.3. and 2.2.4. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
However,  collecting  these  detailed  statistics  caused  a  high  administrative  burden  for  the 
Member States. Directive 2010/24/EU limited the categories of statistical information that 
Member States are obliged to provide, and it was agreed that the Member States should no 
longer provide the statistical information needed to assess the global recovery ratio.17 

b.  Some other elements shed some light on the real results of the recovery assistance. 

First  of  all,  it  appears  that  the  evolution  of  the  recovered  amounts  (2015-2016:  x  4  since 
2005) is in line with the increase of the amounts for which recovery assistance is requested 
(2015: x 3 since 2005; 2016: x 4 since 2005; see table 4 below): 

Table 4: global evolution of the amounts for which recovery assistance was requested (in 
%, compared to 2005 = 100 %; based on the sent requests): 

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

c.   One Member State (France) expressed the following opinion of its recovery results:  

"If we consider  the  number of requests:  about 40 %  of them have  been followed 2 years 
later  by  payments  of  the  debt  (complete  or  partial  payment),  thanks  to  the  assistance 
provided by the requested Member State. 

But  if  we  consider  the  amount  of  the  requests,  the  results  are  not  so  good.  The  rate  of 
recovery is about 5 % two years later, sometimes 7 to 8 % (it may vary from year to year), 
because of high amounts concentrated on a small number of claims. 

The process works  properly for  the small amounts, generally concerning border workers. 
The mutual recovery assistance also has a dissuasive effect on the taxpayers' behaviour, but 
we are not able to appreciate it accurately. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  recovery  is  difficult  for  the  high  amounts  because  of  the 
disappearance  or  insolvency  of  the  debtor,  long  disputes  in  a  fraudulent  context,  older 
claims. These claims have often been assessed after a tax audit, with heavy penalties." 

17   In  the past,  the  statistical  reporting  obligation was  laid  down  in  the  Commission Directive  laying down  the 
detailed rules for implementing the Council Directive (in Article 29 of the Commission Directive 2002/94/EC 
of  9  December  2002  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  implementing  certain  provisions  of  Council  Directive 
76/308/EEC on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other 
measures. Now the statistical reporting obligation is inserted in the Council Directive itself (Article 27(1)).  

16 

 
 
                                                            
This  French  observation  corresponds  to  the  conclusions  of  the  Belgian  Court  of  Audit, 
which made a random survey of the recovery requests received and sent by the Belgian tax 
authorities: in general, mutual recovery assistance allows to recover the complete claim or 
nothing at all.18 

d.  It was further observed that these difficult cases (fraud, insolvency, etc.) also present major 
problems for national recovery. Therefore, it is not surprising that these cases also present 
difficulties for the international recovery assistance. 

e.   Moreover, it was held that very high amounts of taxes and heavy penalties could in some 
cases  be  the  result  of  audits  based  on  presumptions  and  (over)estimations  which  may  not 
always  correspond  to  the  real  tax  eluded  (in  particular  in  situations  of  VAT  fraud)  or  the 
real tax paying ability of the tax debtor concerned. 

f.  Although it is not possible to establish a precise recovery ratio, an approximative indication 
of the requested Member States' results and efforts can be induced from the statistics of the 
average yearly amount for which assistance requests were received in the period 2013-2016 
(table 5a); the average yearly amount recovered by the requested Member State within the 
same period (table 5b); and the comparison between the preceding figures (table 5c): 

Table 5a: average yearly amount (in €) for which recovery assistance requests were 
received in the period 2013-2016, as reported by the requested Member State: 

350000000

300000000

250000000

200000000

150000000

100000000

50000000

0

E
B

G
B

Z
C

K
D

E
D

E
I

E
E

L
E

S
E

R
F

R
H

T
I

Y
C

V
L

T
L

U
L

U
H

T
M

L
N

T
A

L
P

T
P

I

O S
R

I

K F
S

E
S

K
U

18 Belgian Court of Audit, October 2014, p. 39, nr. 4.4.1. (See point 4.2.4.c.). 

17 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table 5b: average yearly amount (in €) recovered for other Member States, in the period 
2013-2016, as reported by the requested Member State: 

12000000

10000000

8000000

6000000

4000000

2000000

0

E
B

G
B

Z
C

K
D

E
D

E
E

E
I

L
E

S
E

R
F

R
H

T
I

Y
C

V
L

T
L

U
L

U
H

T
M

L
N

T
A

L
P

T
P

I

O S
R

I

K F
S

E
S

K
U

Table  5c:  Percentage  of  average  yearly  recovered  amounts,  compared  to  the  average 
yearly  amounts  for  which  recovery  assistance  requests  are  received,  both  in  the  period 
2013-2016, as reported by the requested Member State: 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK

Table 5c clearly indicates that some Member States effectively recover tax claims on behalf 
of  other  Member  States  (Finland:  26,52  %;  the  Netherlands:  16,60  %;  Sweden:  12,75  %; 
Ireland: 11,74 %), while 16 of the 28 requested Member States hardly obtain any recovery 
(Cyprus:  0,05  %;  Romania:  0,19  %;  Malta:  0,24  %;  Bulgaria:  0,26  %;  Latvia:  0,50  %; 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
Slovak  Republic:  0,51  %;  Croatia:  0,63  %;  Lithuania:  0,97  %;  Hungary:  1,33  %;  United 
Kingdom: 1,34 %; Estonia: 1,50 %; Greece: 1,76 %; Luxemburg: 1,91 %; Austria: 2,03 %; 
Spain: 2,12 %; Italy: 2,21 %).19  

6.1.1.3. Specific factors influencing the recovered amounts 

Increase of recovery assistance requests 

a.  According to Member States' responses, the high and still increasing number of requests for 

recovery assistance (see table 6) entails an administrative burden.  

Table 6: total annual numbers of requests for recovery assistance on the basis of Directive 
2010/24/EU: 

18000

16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

requests for information

requests for notification

requests for precautionary or
recovery measures

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Lack of resources and efforts for recovery assistance 

b.  The handling of tax recovery assistance requests thus needs sufficient human resources, just 

as the handling of internal recovery cases. 

In their replies to the evaluation questionnaire, 18 Member States observed that the number 
of  requests  for  recovery  from  other  Member  States  is  very  burdensome  for  them,  and  17 
Member States expressed their concerns about a lack of resources on the national level (see 
further  under  point  6.2.2.3.  for  an  overview  of  the  workload  per  Member  State).  Several 
delegates  in  Recovery  Expert  Group  meetings  or  in  Fiscalis  events  also  expressed  their 
concerns about the lack of human resources designated to deal with recovery requests from 
other Member States.  

In this regard, it is significant that one Member State (Malta) complained that the 1500 € 
threshold  for  requests  for  recovery  or  precautionary  measures  –  which  is  imposed  by  the 

19   It  should  be  repeated  that  the  above  "scores"  (see  table  5c)  are  influenced  by  many  factors  which  make  it 

impossible to make an exact "ranking" of the performance of all requested Members States. 

19 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Directive in order to take account of the workload generated by such requests – is too low, 
although  this  Member  State  yearly  received  only  about  22  requests  for  recovery  (average 
for the reporting period 2013-2015). 

The very low recovery rates of several Member States (see table 5c; calculated on the basis 
of their own statistics) seem to indicate that their difficulties to provide recovery assistance 
are not  only due to  the  problematic character  of the debts  and debtors, but  also  –  at least 
partially – to the limitation of the efforts invested in providing tax recovery assistance.  

c.  The  capacities  to  deal  with  assistance  requests  are  linked  to  the  willingness  to  provide 
recovery  assistance.  It  seems  that  not  all  Member  States  spend  sufficient  efforts  and 
attention to the assistance requests they receive from other Member States. In their replies 
to  the  questionnaire,  10  Member  States  express  the  feeling  that  cross-border  recovery 
assistance is not a priority for tax administrations. 

Loopholes in the national means for tax recovery 

d.  Another  major  concern  is  the  availability  of  appropriate  recovery  and  precautionary 
measures  within  the Member  States.  Articles  13  and  17  of  Directive  2010/24/EU  provide 
that the requested authority shall make use of the powers and procedures provided under the 
laws,  regulations  or  administrative  provisions  of  the  requested  Member  State  applying  to 
claims concerning the same or a similar tax or duty. In their replies, a few Member States 
reported that since 2010 they have introduced legal or administrative amendments to the tax 
collection  and  recovery  process,  which  are  also  relevant  for  mutual  recovery  assistance. 
However, it still appears that the existing powers and procedures do not always ensure an 
effective and efficient tax recovery, or that the rules concerned are not fit for the recovery 
of other Member States' claims. 

In their replies to the questionnaire, several Member States underlined the need to improve 
tax recovery within the Member States. Specific concerns related to:   

legally complex national rules (11 Member States);  
tax officials having no access to some national databases (8 Member States); 

 
 
  national requirements on notification of debtors (7 Member States).  

The following examples illustrate the concern about national tax recovery weaknesses: 

-  

in some Member States, the use of precautionary measures to guarantee recovery of a 
contested claim appears either not to be permitted or limited. If the tax authorities of the 
requested  Member  State  do  not  dispose  of  (sufficient)  precautionary  measures  to 
guarantee  the  recovery  of  their  own  contested  claims,  this  implies  that  these  Member 
States  are  simply  unable  to  execute  requests  from  other  Member  States  for 
precautionary  measures  –  although  these  are  considered  to  be  essential  in  the  fight 
against fraudulent tax debtors; 

-  one  Member  State  observed  that  if  it  is  requested  to  provide  recovery  assistance,  the 
competent  recovery  agent  is  obliged  to  send  a  notice  to  the  debtor,  asking  for  the 
payment (irrespective of the notifications already made by the applicant Member State 
and  the  payment  period  already  granted  by  the  applicant  Member  State).  Recovery 
measures can only be started after a (new) payment period which can go from 30 to 150 
days; 

-   following a request to seize money on a bank account, a Member State answered that it 
could not execute such a request unless the full details about the debtor's bank account 
were  provided,  i.e.  not  only  IBAN  (International  Bank  Account  Number)  and  BIC 
(Bank  Identifier  Code)  and  name  of  the  bank,  but  also  the  exact  address  of  the  local 

20 

 
 
 
 
bank where this bank account was opened. Following a request for clarification by the 
Commission  services,  this  Member  State  has  indicated  that  it  cannot  guarantee  that 
providing  the  IBAN  and  BIC  code  and  the  name  of  the  bank  is  sufficient  for  the 
execution of a request to seize money on a bank account in that country; 

-  one  Member  State  claims  that  requests  for  recovery  should  mention  the  name  of  the 

father of the debtor. Otherwise, the execution of the request is problematic.  

6.1.1.4. Other use of information provided under the Directive (unintended impact) 

a.  Article  23(1)  of  the  Directive  states  that  the  information  communicated  pursuant  to  this 
Directive may be used for the purpose of applying enforcement or precautionary measures 
with regard to claims covered by this Directive, but also: 

-   for assessment and enforcement of compulsory social security contributions; 

-   for  other  purposes,  in  line  with  Article  23(3)  of  the  Directive  (i.e.  if,  under  the 
legislation of the Member State providing the information, the information may be used 
for similar purposes). 

b.  A large majority of Member States reported that they do not use this information for other 

purposes.  

Some Member States however indicated that this information is or could be useful for other 
purposes:  

-   for  risk  analysis  and  to  manage  VAT  refund  cases  (Latvia),  or  for  income  related 

regulations (the Netherlands); 

-   for the recovery of non-fiscal debts. In this regard, Belgium observed that the recovery 
of a wide range of non-fiscal debts is entrusted to the Belgian tax authorities. Sweden 
observed that the Swedish Enforcement Agency handles both private and public claims 
regarding the same debtor, so that address information obtained under the tax recovery 
assistance Directive could also be useful for enforcement of private claims. 

6.1.2.   Did the Directive help Member States to create a deterrent effect towards non-

compliance? 

6.1.2.1. Member States' view on the 'compliance effect' created by the Directive 

a.  Ten  Member  States  consider  that  the  existence  of  the  recovery  assistance  possibilities 
offered  by  Directive  2010/24/EU  also  had  a  positive  effect  on  the  tax  payment  and  tax 
compliance behaviour in their country. This opinion was also shared by the respondents to 
the public consultation. However, the deterrent effect of the recovery assistance Directive 
towards non-compliance cannot be measured exactly. 

b.  The  adoption  of  this  Directive  was  commented  in  many  tax  reviews  and  magazines,  and 
law  firms  organized  seminars  and  sent  notes  to  inform  their  clients  about  this  new 
legislation.  The  Commission  also  noted  that  several  web  sites  and  public  discussions  on 

21 

 
 
 
 
 
 
web  forums  paid  attention  to  the  adoption  of  Directive  2010/24/EU  and  raised  awareness 
about the increasing tax recovery assistance between the Member States. 

c.  It can be presumed that the compliance has also been influenced, at least to some extent, by 
the  information  on  the  growing  exchange  of  information  between  tax  authorities.  The 
worldwide  media  attention  for  some  bank  information  leaks,  the  actions  of  the  EU20,  the 
OECD and the G-20 to improve the administrative cooperation between tax authorities, and 
the attention for voluntary disclosure schemes have contributed to tax compliance in general. 
It can be presumed that this also had a positive effect on the voluntary payment of taxes. 

d.  However, the response to the public consultation indicated that the awareness could – and 
should – be further increased by more information actions. The EU is expected to take more 
actions  to  explain  the  legislation  on  mutual  tax  recovery  assistance21  (cf.    infra,  point 
6.3.3.3.)  and  it  was  also  suggested  that  the  tax  authorities  of  the  Member  States  should 
publish  more  information  about  mutual  tax  recovery  assistance  on  their  local  websites. 
More  communication  about  the  tools  for  tax  recovery  assistance  is  expected  to  have  an 
indirect dissuasive effect. 

e.  Finally, there is also a feeling that the existence of the recovery assistance framework does 
not  deter  fraudsters  who  deliberately  evade  their  tax  obligations.  These  debtors  can  hide 
assets outside the EU, where they cannot be retraced or seized, while these persons organise 
their insolvency in the EU Member States. Fraudsters effectively have time to do so, as tax 
authorities  can  only  resort  to  tax  recovery  measures  if  taxes  are  not  paid  spontaneously. 
Moreover,  they  probably  also  count  on  weaknesses  of  the  internal tax collection  systems, 
which affect the mutual recovery assistance in a negative way.  

6.1.2.2. Exchange of best practices to improve tax compliance 

a.  At  several  Fiscalis  2020  workshops,  Member  States  have  discussed  specific  questions  on 

how to improve tax compliance.  

Examples:  

- 

at  the  Fiscalis  2020  workshop  in  Lisbon  on  27-28  October  2015,  Member  States 
reported and discussed about their experiences with regard to the use of e-services for 
instalment 
information  about 
disqualification orders, which are considered to have a deterrent effect22;  

requests  and  about 

the  possibilities 

to  share 

-   at the Fiscalis 2020 workshop in Brussels on 20-21 May 2017, Member States discussed 
best practices on the use of behavioural economics technics to increase tax compliance. 

b.  Member  States  introducing  new  measures  or  practices  are  encouraged  to  inform  other 
Member States. This information sharing has become a permanent element of Fiscalis 2020 

20   Including the amendment of Directive 2011/16/EU which provides an automatic information exchange about 
different categories of income obtained in other Member States, and the adoption of Directive 2014/107/EU 
imposing an automatic exchange of financial account information. 

21   At  the  same  time,  most  respondents  in  the  public  consultation  (16  of  24)  acknowledged  that  they  were  not 

aware of the existing information, published on the website of the European Commission. 

22   A  disqualification  of  a  company  director  means  that  he  is  banned  ('disqualified')  from  being  a  company 

director if he is responsible for the company not paying its tax debts. 

22 

 
 
 
                                                            
workshops. Important ideas on how to create a deterrent effect towards non-compliance are 
given special attention in the newsletter that is published regularly.23 

6.2. Did the uniform procedural tools improve the efficiency and 
effectiveness of recovery assistance? 

Council  Directive  2010/24/EU  introduced  the  use  of  a  uniform  instrument  permitting 
enforcement measures in the requested Member State (UIPE) and a uniform notification form 
(UNF) for notification of instruments and decisions relating to the tax claims falling within the 
scope of this Directive. These standardised forms are exchanged in an electronic way, with an 
automatic translation.  

The electronic communication also applies to the request forms that are used for sending – and 
replying  to  –  requests  for  information,  requests  for  notification,  requests  for  precautionary 
measures  and  requests  for  recovery  measures.  These  forms  have  also  been  standardised, 
allowing an automatic translation. 

The  purpose  was  to  resolve  the  problems  of  recognition  and  translation  of  instruments 
emanating from another Member State.24 

6.2.1.   Is requesting assistance easier than before? (situation of the applicant 

Member State) 

6.2.1.1. Use of the electronic request forms by the applicant authority 

a.  A few Member States observed that the current e-forms are quite complex and long. This is 
the consequence of the Member States' choice to develop e-forms for all types of assistance 
requests, covering as many situations and standard information/replies as possible, in order 
to limit the translation needs.  

b.  Each  new  release  of  the  e-forms  is  discussed  in  advance  in  the  Recovery  Expert  Group, 
where  amendments  and  improvements  are  agreed.  Moreover,  for  each  new  release,  a 
Fiscalis 2020 workshop is organised in order to train the officials that are using the e-forms 
in practice.  

6.2.1.2. Effect of the adoption of the UIPE (Uniform Instrument Permitting Enforcement 
in the requested Member State) for the applicant Member State 

23   Examples: the new tax clearance system  introduced in Ireland was reported in the newsletter  2016-1, p. 4. 
(Any  individual  or  business  who  seeks  State  grants  or  participates  in  a  public  procurement  procedure  is 
required to hold a valid tax clearance certificate. From 1 January 2016, a new procedure has been introduced, 
in order to avoid abuse of such tax clearance certificates.). The new rules on directors disqualification orders, 
introduced in the NL to fight bankruptcy fraud and the UK rules on accelerated payments imposed to those 
who have used a tax avoidance scheme, were reported in the newsletter 2017-1. 

24   Preamble of Council Directive 2010/24/EU, point 8. 

23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
a.   Almost all Member States explicitly confirm that the adoption of the UIPE had a positive 
impact on the work of national tax administrations, acting as applicant authority, as it made 
the preparation of assistance requests easier. For a large majority of Member States (21 of 
28),  the  UIPE  also  makes  preparation  of  requests  for  assistance  less  costly,  although  two 
Member  States  (United  Kingdom  and  Sweden)  disagree  on  this  point  (without  offering 
further explanation). 

Almost  all  Member  States  also  confirm  that  the  UIPE  form  is  complete  (meaning  that  it 
contains  sufficient  information  to  inform  the  debtor  and  the  requested  authority)  and  that 
the level of detail in the UIPE form is optimal. 

b.  For the applicant  Member States,  the biggest  advantages  of the UIPE over the old  paper-
based  system  experienced  are:  the  absence  of  translation  costs  (25  of  28),  the  electronic 
exchange (24 of 28), the avoidance of recognition issues (17 of 28), the facilitation of the 
work  for  the  requested  Member  State  (16  of  28)  and  the  use  of  pre-set  fields  (15  of  28). 
Half  of  the  Member  States  (14  of  28)  also  consider  that  the  UIPE  is  less  prone  to  errors. 
One Member State (Belgium) drew the attention to some other advantages, which were not 
listed in the possibilities mentioned in the questionnaire: the automatic addition of sums and 
conversion of currency; the fact that there are no separate attachments to be communicated, 
since  the  UIPE  is  integrated  in  the  request  form  and  automatically  filled  out  from  the 
request form. 

c.  Some Member States observed that the lay-out of the request form and the UIPE could be 
further improved. This is indeed an on-going process since the start of the development of 
the  electronic  request  forms.  The  latest  version  of  the  electronic  request  forms  has  been 
made  available  for  use  by  the  Member  States  from  1  June  2016.  This  new  version  takes 
account of recent Member States' suggestions to make the request forms more user-friendly.  

d.   The opinions of the Member States are divided with regard to the question whether the use 
of the UIPE saves time. Some Member States (9 of 24 replying Member States) are of the 
opinion that less time is needed to prepare requests for recovery assistance under the new 
Directive. The other replying Member States consider that the time needed to prepare such 
requests is still in line with the time needed before. A number of Member States (6 Member 
States)  did  not  reply  to  this  question:  one  Member  State  could  not  compare  with  the 
previous situation as it only became a Member State after the entry into force of the new 
system  (Croatia);  others  (Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Ireland,  the  Netherlands,  Finland) 
considered  that  it  was  difficult  to  give  a  precise  answer  to  this  question.  As  observed  by 
some  other  Member  States  (Latvia, Luxemburg,  Sweden), the  time  needed  indeed largely 
depends on the specific circumstances of each case: e.g. the number or the details of claims 
and UIPEs can be very different; there may be co-debtors, etc. 

6.2.1.3. Effect of the UNF (uniform notification form) for the applicant Member State 

a.  The adoption of the UNF is generally considered to have a positive impact on the work of 
the  tax  authorities  which  request  notification  assistance.  Most  Member  States  are  of  the 
opinion that it makes the preparation of the request easier (22 of 28) and less costly (19 of 
28) for the applicant authority. This UNF can be exchanged electronically (20 of 28) and it 
facilitates a smooth notification process (19 of 28). At the same time, it guarantees that the 
debtor  is  well  informed  (19  of  28),  the  UNF  can  be  translated  in  all  official  languages 
without  translation  costs  (18  of  28)  and  there  is  no  need  for  the  applicant  authority  to 
explain the purpose of the requested notification in a separate letter to the debtor. 

24 

 
 
 
b.  No disadvantages were reported. 

c.  9 Member States reported that the average time needed for the preparation of a request for 
notification  has  been  reduced,  following  the  introduction  of  the  UNF.  These  are  mostly 
Member  States  who  needed  most  time  to  prepare  a  notification  request  before  the 
introduction of the UNF. 

6.2.1.4. Effect of the extension of the scope on the workload 

a.  A majority of Member States reported that the broadening of the scope caused an increase 

of their workload as applicant Member States (16 of 27).  

b.  With regard to the effect on the complexity of the work for the applicant Member State, the 
Member  States'  opinions  are  divided.  While  some  consider  that  the  work  has  certainly 
become  more  complex  for  the  applicant  State  (13  of  27),  others  have  the  feeling  that  the 
work has become less complex for the applicant State (8 of 27) and some Member States do 
not see any real difference on this point (6 of 27). 

It  is  unclear  why  so  many  Member  States  expressed  an  opposite  view  with  regard  to  the 
question about the complexity resulting from the enlarged scope: 

-  

-  

these  different  views  may  be  caused  by  differences  in  national  factors  (differences  in 
national organisations, in the number of tax levying authorities within a Member State, 
and  in  the  number  of  different  procedures  for  the  collection  and  recovery  of  different 
taxes and duties); 

they  may  also  relate  to  the  need  to  use  the  correct  mailboxes  for  sending  assistance 
requests. In line with the decision of the Recovery Committee, the Commission has set 
up  several  mailboxes  for  the  communication  of  assistance  requests,  depending  on  the 
categories of taxes for which assistance is requested. The purpose of these arrangements 
was to make sure that a request is directly sent to the mailbox which is managed by the 
requested authority which is competent to deal with that type of tax. 

6.2.2.   Is providing assistance easier than before? (situation of the requested Member State) 

6.2.2.1. Effect of the UIPE (Uniform Instrument Permitting Enforcement in the requested 
Member State) for the requested Member State 

a.  The  Member  States'  reports  largely  confirm  that  the  adoption  of  the  UIPE  had  a  positive 
impact on the work and the costs of the requested authorities. Almost all Member States (27 
of 28) confirm that the UIPE makes processing of assistance requests from other Member 
States easier. In general, it is felt that the UIPE makes processing of assistance requests from 
other Member States less costly, that the UIPE form is easy to read and complete, and that its 
level of detail is optimal. 

b.  For the requested Member States, the biggest advantages of the UIPE over the old paper-based 
system are: the absence of translation costs (25 of 28); the avoidance of recognition issues (24 of 
28); the electronic exchange (23 of 28); the facilitation of the work of the requested Member State 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
(21 of 28), the use of pre-set fields (16 of 28) and the fact that the UIPE is less prone to errors (12 
of 28). 

  Other advantages for the requested Member State, not listed in the evaluation questionnaire, were 

also reported: 

  automatic addition of sums and conversion of currency (Belgium); 
  no separate attachments to be communicated, since the UIPE is integrated in the request 

form and automatically filled out from the request form (Belgium); 

  with the UIPE, the execution of a request for assistance can start quickly (Sweden). 

c.  From  their  position  as  requested  Member  States,  some  Member  States  have  made 
suggestions  to  further  improve  the  lay-out  of  the  UIPE,  in  particular  in  its  printed  form. 
Some suggestions have been taken into account in the 2016 revision of the e-forms. Other 
suggestions should be taken into account in a further stage of development of the e-forms.  

In  any  case,  it  is  at  the  request  of  the  Member  States  that  the  request  form  for  recovery 
measures and the UIPE were developed in such a way that they can comprise many claims 
relating  to  all  possible  types  of  taxes  and  duties.  This  inevitably  leads  to  a  certain 
complexity. 

d.   It  appears  that  a  number  of  debtors  still  ask  for  the  initial  instrument  permitting 
enforcement  in  the  applicant  Member  State,  as  they  hold  that  the  UIPE  does  not  contain 
sufficient details for making an appeal against the claim. 

It should however be reminded that the UIPE is the legal basis for the recovery measures to 
be taken by the requested Member State. In principle, such a request for recovery assistance 
can  only  be  sent  after  the  enforcement  measures  of  the  applicant  Member  State.  In  this 
preceding  stage,  the  applicant  Member  State  should  already  have  notified  its  initial 
instrument  permitting  enforcement,  in  accordance  with  its  national  law.25  Insofar  as  the 
applicant  Member  State  cannot  notify  itself  to  debtors  in  other  Member  States,  it  can 
request  assistance  for  the  notification  of  any  relevant  documents.  The  availability  of 
notification assistance, implying the use of a uniform notification form (and possibly of an 
accompanying note to the addressee; see point 6.3.3.2.c.), serves this purpose. 

As the UIPE is not the first document informing the debtors about the claim, it could not be 
accepted that the persons concerned just ignore the initial notification.  

Furthermore, both the UNF and the UIPE contain fields allowing a clear indication of the 
authorities  responsible  and  the  authorities  in  the  applicant  Member  State  where  further 
information about the claim and the contestation possibilities can be obtained if needed. It 
is up to the applicant Member States to make sure that these contact details are effectively 
made available to the addressees. 

e.  Eventually, it seems that the introduction of the UIPE did not have a significant impact on 
the  average  time  that  national  administrations  need  to  start  the  execution  of  a  request  for 
assistance. Six Member States reported a reduction of this time. 

f.  With  regard  to  the  overall  time  needed  for  the  execution  of  a  request  for  recovery 
assistance, the  2014 report of the Belgian Court of Audit  made a quantitive evaluation of 
the impact of the new arrangements. It appears from this report that, before the introduction 

25  

In this regard, the use of the Direct Notification Form (DNF; see point 6.3.3.2.d.) to accompany documents 
notified directly to debtors in another Member States clearly has an added value, as this DNF can be translated 
automatically in the official language of the Member State of destination (or in another official EU language 
that can be understood by the addressee). 

26 

 
                                                            
of  the  UIPE,  incoming  requests  for recovery  assistance  were  executed  by  the  Belgian  tax 
authorities  within  441  days  (on  average);  while  incoming  requests  received  since  the 
implementation of the UIPE were executed within 85 days (on average).26 

6.2.2.2. Effect of the adoption of the UNF (Uniform Notification Form) for the requested 
Member State 

a.  A  majority  of  Member  States  reported  that  the  UNF  makes  processing  of  requests  for 
notification coming from other Member States easier (21 of 28). The adoption of the UNF 
makes  it  now  less  costly  to  execute  a  notification  process  (18  of  28).  The  electronic 
communication  is  considered  to  be  a  big  advantage  (24  of  28),  as  well  as  the  absence  of 
translation costs (21 of 28). Moreover, it saves time to process the request (19 of 28), and 
the current system is less prone to errors (15 of 28).  

b.  No inconveniences were reported. 

6.2.2.3. Workload to handle incoming requests for assistance 

a.   It has already been mentioned that a majority of Member States experience problems with 
the  workload  related  to  the  execution  of  assistance  requests,  in  particular  requests  for 
recovery  measures  (see  point  6.1.1.3.).  The  administrative  burden  experienced  by  the 
requested  Member  States  was  different  from  Member  State  to  Member  State.  This 
workload of course depends on the number of tax officials available for handling assistance 
requests  (at  the  level  of  the  Central  Liaison  Office  and  at  local  level),  on  the  number  of 
requests  received  by  each  Member  State  and  on  the  complexity  of  the  cases  for  which 
assistance is requested. 

b.  In  15  Member  States  (Austria,  Belgium,  Germany,  Greece,  France,  Hungary,  Italy, 
Lithuania,  Luxemburg,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Romania,  Spain,  Sweden  and  United 
Kingdom),  5  or  more27  FTE  (full  time  equivalent)  were  dealing  at  CLO  (Central  Liaison 
Office)  level  with  tax  recovery  assistance  for  other  Member  States.  In  the  other  Member 
States, the numbers varied between 0,5 FTE and 3, 5 FTE (0,5 FTE in Estonia and Malta; 
1,5  FTE  in  Denmark,  Ireland,  Latvia  and  Slovenia;  2,5  FTE  in  Portugal  and  Slovak 
Republic; 3,5 FTE in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Cyprus and Finland).  

c.  With  regard  to  the  incoming  requests  for  information,  the  opinions  on  the  administrative 
burden  related  to  these  requests  are  divided:  11  of  27  consider  this  is  burdensome  or 
somewhat  burdensome,  while  the  same  number  (11  of  27)  consider  that  it  is  not  (very) 
burdensome.  

26   Belgian  Court  of  Audit,  report  on  international  mutual  assistance  for  the  recovery  of  taxes,  October  2014, 

point 4.4.4. 

27   Note: Member States were not required to indicate a precise number if it was more than 5. However, some of 
these  Member  States  provided  an  exact  number  (BE:  6  officials;  ES:  8  officials;  PL:  11  officials;  RO:  8 
officials). 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table  7:  statistical  information  from  the  Member  States  about  the  number  of  incoming 
requests for information (2010  – 2016):  

           Member State considering this number burdensome 

           Member State considering this number somewhat burdensome 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

BE 
BG 
CZ 
DK 
DE 
EE 
IE 
EL 
ES 
FR 
HR 
IT 
CY 
LV 
LT 
LU 
HU 
MT 
NL 
AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

68 
61 
22 
25 
289 
14 
109 
34 
294 
651 

100 
26 
21 
48 
38 
55 
5 
206 
28 
250 
84 
95 
11 
26 
10 
43 
362 

89 
42 
39 
29 
414 
18 
96 
38 
267 
648 

122 
30 
19 
45 
52 
64 
11 
234 
21 
286 
103 
72 
6 
31 
16 
52 
374 

654 
61 
69 
39 
978 
41 
129 
46 
415 
657 

141 
22 
26 
58 
74 
96 
16 
411 
142 
615 
119 
172 
12 
118 
25 
87 
858 

398 
464 
102 
54 
1283 
71 
154 
76 
491 
987 
48 
300 
31 
52 
63 
100 
207 
15 
551 
125 
891 
165 
196 
39 
131 
94 
95 
1067 

429 
298 
121 
67 
1621 
43 
142 
96 
404 
1190 
55 
399 
94 
69 
102 
143 
343 
28 
645 
207 
694 
192 
534 
57 
206 
79 
114 
1616 

496 
300 
99 
81 
1982 
36 
138 
105 
450 
1276 
54 
389 
67 
97 
111 
167 
390 
17 
625 
236 
778 
226 
571 
57 
127 
27 
117 
1714 

505 
364 
166 
81 
1899 
53 
224 
156 
600 
1567 
109 
544 
86 
97 
129 
275 
461 
36 
773 
261 
830 
328 
861 
84 
133 
311 
186 
2511 

d.   With regard to the incoming requests for notification, a minority of Member States stated 
that  the  number  of  incoming  requests  made  it  burdensome  or  somewhat  burdensome  for 
their administration to comply.  

The statistics on the incoming notification requests show that the feelings on this point do 
not always coincide with the actual number of requests received (see table 8 below). Cyprus 
reported  that  the  number  of  incoming  requests  for  notification  is  burdensome  for  its 
administration, although the number of such incoming requests is relatively low. Malta and 
Sweden  reported  that  these  incoming  requests  make  it  somewhat  burdensome  for  their 
administration  to  comply,  although  they  also  receive  a  relatively  low  number  of  such 
requests. 

28 

 
  
  
  
  
 
Table  8:  statistical  information  from  the  Member  States  about  the  number  of  incoming 
requests for notification (2010 – 2016):  

           Member State considering this number burdensome 

           Member State considering this number somewhat burdensome 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

123 
4 
39 
14 
99 
2 
13 
14 
76 
107 

85 
5 
14 
52 
32 
39 
1 
65 
16 
142 
11 
84 
8 
20 
10 
23 
186 

97 
10 
29 
18 
148 
2 
9 
9 
75 
60 

71 
5 
21 
19 
34 
71 
0 
129 
39 
196 
16 
51 
5 
28 
0 
21 
121 

68 
5 
13 
20 
167 
3 
16 
12 
106 
72 

48 
3 
11 
5 
18 
44 
2 
54 
17 
302 
16 
52 
18 
10 
4 
16 
221 

88 
22 
47 
17 
162 
11 
19 
19 
116 
77 
5 
66 
4 
15 
39 
51 
66 
8 
65 
80 
595 
12 
53 
9 
28 
11 
21 
360 

140 
38 
36 
17 
208 
9 
39 
15 
113 
79 
11 
102 
11 
39 
55 
82 
83 
5 
53 
38 
365 
15 
81 
7 
30 
3 
20 
501 

136 
26 
34 
17 
282 
4 
47 
26 
101 
71 
11 
116 
9 
44 
45 
80 
129 
2 
62 
53 
301 
22 
54 
4 
35 
5 
13 
439 

94 
67 
36 
10 
249 
11 
46 
15 
120 
60 
12 
100 
12 
51 
43 
70 
113 
2 
71 
57 
280 
18 
71 
12 
19 
12 
36 
518 

BE 
BG 
CZ 
DK 
DE 
EE 
IE 
EL 
ES 
FR 
HR 
IT 
CY 
LV 
LT 
LU 
HU 
MT 
NL 
AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

e.   With regard to the number of incoming requests for precautionary measures, a majority of 
Member  States  (15  of  27;  4  Member  States  did  not  express  an  opinion  on  this  question) 
considers  that  the  number  of  incoming  requests  did  not  make  it  burdensome  for  their 
administration to comply.  

This  opinion is  not surprising, as the number of precautionary measures still remains low 
for  almost  all  Member  States.  Only  one  Member  State  (France)  received  a  considerable 
number of precautionary measures (see table 9 below).28 

28   At the same time, FR also sent out most requests for precautionary (see point 6.44.1.1., table 21). 

29 

 
 
  
  
  
  
 
                                                            
Four  other  Member  States  also  stated  that  the  number  of  incoming  requests  for 
precautionary  measures  made  it  burdensome  (Bulgaria,  Malta)  or  somewhat  burdensome 
(Italy,  Lithuania)  for  their  administration  to  comply,  although  they  received  a  very  low 
number of such requests in the period 2013-2015:  

Table  9:  statistical  information  from  the  Member  States  about  the  number  of  incoming 
requests for precautionary measures (2013 – 2016):  

           Member State considering this number burdensome 

           Member State considering this number somewhat burdensome 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

BE 
BG 
CZ 
DK 
DE 
EE 
IE 
EL 
ES 
FR 
HR 
IT 
CY 
LV 
LT 
LU 
HU 
MT 
NL 
AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

17 
1 
0 
0 
11 
0 
0 
0 
8 
41 
1 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
2 
4 
2 
5 
4 
4 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

7 
2 
0 
0 
9 
2 
0 
1 
5 
3 
1 
6 
0 
0 
1 
0 
3 
2 
3 
10 
11 
5 
2 
0 
5 
0 
2 
0 

0 
6 
0 
1 
8 
0 
0 
0 
5 
66 
2 
4 
2 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
2 
3 
6 
4 
5 
0 
4 
0 
3 
0 

1 
2 
0 
0 
10 
1 
0 
0 
15 
1 
6 
4 
4 
6 
0 
0 
3 
2 
3 
8 
5 
4 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

f.   With  regard  to  the  incoming  requests  for  recovery  measures:  18  of  27  Member  States 
reported  that  the  number  of  incoming  requests  for  recovery  made  it  (at  least  somewhat) 
burdensome for their administration to comply.  

30 

 
  
 
 
 
Table  10:  statistical  information  from  the  Member  States  about  the  number  of  incoming 
requests for recovery (2010 – 2016):  

           Member State considering this number burdensome 

           Member State considering this number somewhat burdensome 

2010 

2011 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

BE 
BG 
CZ 
DK 
DE 
EE 
IE 
EL 
ES 
FR 
HR 
IT 
CY 
LV 
LT 
LU 
HU 
MT 
NL 
AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

369 
51 
122 
70 
732 
197 
237 
90 
624 
885 

316 
53 
72 
137 
189 
139 
12 
708 
51 
2050 
115 
210 
25 
94 
293 
44 
702 

437 
56 
128 
72 
948 
29 
251 
91 
605 
1056 

320 
42 
66 
143 
235 
193 
12 
815 
55 
2725 
120 
167 
24 
95 
20 
62 
799 

340 
63 
137 
59 
1038 
292 
175 
61 
460 
693 

198 
31 
77 
160 
201 
160 
9 
669 
420 
1125 
109 
154 
17 
90 
58 
58 
807 

594 
118 
157 
60 
1225 
350 
138 
93 
452 
1029 
22 
456 
50 
63 
216 
261 
320 
21 
851 
607 
1445 
94 
223 
44 
105 
74 
56 
1267 

679 
159 
170 
125 
1670 
385 
211 
82 
469 
1232 
80 
484 
67 
85 
203 
448 
323 
17 
1081 
428 
2978 
180 
341 
87 
207 
101 
76 
1755 

714 
191 
238 
122 
1840 
542 
240 
87 
556 
1248 
114 
703 
71 
102 
202 
305 
472 
27 
1164 
770 
2525 
192 
264 
99 
318 
68 
76 
1519 

807 
263 
404 
102 
1791 
330 
223 
69 
681 
1478 
129 
596 
97 
107 
291 
521 
436 
39 
1087 
834 
2509 
221 
768 
160 
242 
87 
116 
2015 

In  this  regard,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  execution  of  assistance  requests,  in  particular 
requests for recovery, cannot be completed immediately. These requests generally require 
follow-up actions and communications during a longer period, and their complexity may be 
very different, depending on the specific circumstances of each case.   

g.  A majority of Member States reported that the broadening of the scope caused an increase 

of their workload as requested Member States (17 of 27).  

With regard to the effect on the complexity of the work for the requested State, the Member 
States' opinions are divided. While most Member States consider that the work has certainly 
become more complex (15 of 27), others consider that the work has become less complex 
(9 of 27) and some Member States do not notice a significant change (3 of 27). 

31 

 
  
  
  
  
h.  Several Member States  – in  their capacity of requested Member State  – also observe that 
(more) attention should be paid by the competent authorities when they fill out the request 
form. It seems that requests do not always provide sufficiently detailed information, which 
leads to additional work for the requested authority. 

6.2.2.4. Administrative cost for the requested Member States 

a.   The  administrative  cost  for  the  requested  Member  States  is  linked  to  the  number  of 
incoming  requests,  but  also  to  the  work  that  they  generate.  It  seems  logic  to  assume  that 
requests for notification only involve a limited action and thus a rather limited cost, just as 
requests for information, while requests for precautionary or recovery measures may entail 
higher costs. 

For most Member States, the reported opinion on the administrative cost is in line with the 
number of requests actually received.  

Some  Member  States  however  declare  that  the  number  of  incoming  requests  makes  it 
(somewhat)  burdensome for their administration to  comply,  while  the number of requests 
received by these Member States is (relatively) low (see tables 7 - 10 above). 

b.   In order to encourage Member States to devote sufficient resources to the recovery of other 
Member  States'  claims,  Article  20(1)  of  Council  Directive  2010/24/EU  introduced  the 
principle that the requested Member State is allowed to retain the costs related to recovery, 
which are recovered from the debtor.29 

The annual statistics about the recovered amounts show a difference between the amounts 
recovered  by  the  requested  Member  States  at  the  request  of  other  Member  States,  before 
deduction of the own costs (left column in the table 11 below) and the amounts received by 
the applicant  Member States (right column in  the table 11 below). This difference can  be 
explained to some extent by other factors: the statistics recorded by the requested Member 
State do not take into account the amounts which are directly paid by the debtor or a third 
party  to  the  applicant  Member  State;  and  there  may  be  a  certain  delay  in  the  transfer  of 
recovered  amounts).  However,  the  considerable  difference  in  the  statistics  for  2015  and 
2016 seems to imply that requested Member States effectively use their right to retain their 
own recovery costs before transferring recovered amounts (insofar as they cannot recover 
the full amount of outstanding tax claims and their own recovery costs).30 

Table 11: overview of recovered amounts (2011-2016): 

Recovered by requested Member States 
at the request of other Member States 
(before deduction of the own costs) 
in € 
54.031.822 
30.641.451 
35.580.763 
42.839.876 
81.402.061 
76.500.163 

2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 
2016 

Recovered by applicant Member States 
via requests to other Member States 

in € 
62.475.879 
32.076.738 
41.115.223 
46.395.481 
65.711.419 
67.019.250 

29   Preamble of the Directive, point 13. 
30   It should however be reminded that the accuracy and reliability of these statistics is not complete (see point 

4.2.3.a.). 

32 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
6.2.3. Did mutual assistance between the Member States increase? 

6.2.3.1. Evolution of the total numbers of requests for mutual assistance 

a.  The total numbers of the different types of requests for assistance received by EU Member 
States  from  other  Member  States,  on  the  basis  of  EU  Directives  2008/55/EC  and 
2010/24/EU, in the period 2011-2016, were as follows: 

Table 12: total numbers of requests received by all Member States in 2011-2016: 

Requests for 
information 

Requests for 
notification 

Requests for 
precautionary 
measures 

Requests for 
recovery 

2011 
2012 
2013 
2014 
2015 
2016 

3218 
6081 
8250 
9988 
10733 
13630 

1284 
1323 
2066 
2195 
2168 
2205 

9566 
7661 
10391 
14123 
14769 
16403 

102 
80 
123 
76 

Table 12a: evolution of the numbers of requests for information 

16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

33 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 12b: evolution of the numbers of requests for notification 

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Table 12c: evolution of the numbers of requests for precautionary measures (information 
available from 2013) 

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

2013

2014

2015

2016

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 12d: evolution of the numbers of requests for recovery 

18000

16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

b.  The decrease of recovery requests in 2012 can be explained – at least to some extent – by 
the late implementation of Directive 2010/24/EU in many Member States (see point 5) and 
the  extra  time  that  the  competent  authorities  needed  to  get  acquainted  with  the  new 
legislation, the new procedures, the new request forms and the uniform instruments. 

6.2.3.2. Total number and size of all communications relating to assistance requests 

The table below shows a continuous increase of the communications relating to recovery assistance 
requests since 2013. The majority of these communications relates to income tax claims. 

Table 13: total number and total size of all messages (requests and follow-up messages) 
sent by all Member States (2013-2016, and average): 

Recovery e-mails 

Customs duties  

Value added tax  

Message 
number 

Total size (in MB) 

18781  

14590 

17007 

15819 

15441 

16328 

26668  

21322 

33837 

38058 

46172 

33211 

3.886,24  

2.033,43 

2.380,85 

2.405,09 

2.240,99 

2.589,32 

4.227,83  

2.710,87 

3.577,28 

4.495,52 

5.145,13 

4.031,33 

Year 

2012  

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Average 

 2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Average 

35 

 
 
 
 
 
Excise duties  

Tax on income or capital  

Tax on insurance premiums  

Inheritance and gift taxes  

National taxes and duties on 
immovable property, other than 
the above-mentioned ones  

National taxes and duties on the use 
or ownership of means of transport  

Other taxes and duties levied by or 
on behalf of the (applicant) State  

Taxes and duties levied by or on 
behalf of territorial or 
administrative subdivisions of the 
(applicant) State, excluding taxes 

4476  

4095 

4663 

3992 

6237 

4693 

70043  

51196 

68877 

68807 

81522 

68089 

268  

279 

465 

263 

316 

318 

605  

568 

1331 

973 

1305 

956 

1704  

1805 

3528 

2779 

3047 

2573 

801  

1253 

2122 

2744 

4471 

2278 

495  

813 

1339 

980 

1284 

982 

422  

1031 

2636 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Average 

2012  

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Average 

2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Average 

 2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Average 

 2012 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Average 

2012  

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Average 

2012  

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Average 

2012 

2013 

2014 

36 

400,69  

774,86 

668,60 

492,00 

696,06 

606,44 

 7.527,34 

4.994,15 

6.196,94 

6.310,61 

7.423,41 

6.490,49 

31,76  

57,29 

68,88 

263,28 

319,47 

148,14 

68,77  

79,90 

131,46 

364,22 

469,57 

222,78 

193,80  

156,73 

278,46 

560,15 

619,51 

361,73 

82,63  

95,01 

135,89 

362,97 

482,88 

231,88 

63,34  

122,40 

185,32 

331,82 

529,84 

246,54 

28,60  

119,93 

240,20 

 
and duties levied by local 
authorities  

Taxes and duties levied by or on 
behalf of local authorities  

Other tax-based claim  

Refunds, interventions and other 
measures forming part of the 
system of total or partial financing 
of the European Agricultural 
Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the 
European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development (EAFRD), 
including sums to be collected in 
connection with these actions, and 
levies and other duties provided 
for under the common 
organisation of the market for the 
sugar sector  

2015 

2016 

Average 

2012  

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Average 

2012  

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

Average 

2012  

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2794 

3861 

2149 

215  

834 

1383 

934 

1392 

952 

435  

495 

1097 

893 

988 

782 

 250 

212 

343 

366 

421 

678,92 

733,45 

360,22 

17,56  

112,50 

105,12 

302,53 

419,66 

191,47 

10,79  

60,12 

190,32 

363,75 

301,07 

185,21 

26,59  

33,07 

54,70 

55,93 

182,19 

Average 

318 

70,50 

6.2.3.3. Presence and assistance of officials of the applicant Member State in the territory 

of the requested State 

a.  Article 7 of Directive 2010/24/EU introduced a possibility for tax recovery officials of one 
Member  State  to  go  to  another  Member  State  and  to  be  present  during  administrative 
enquiries  –  or  even  to  participate  in  these  enquiries  by  interviewing  individuals  and 
examining  records  –  and  to  assist  officials  of  the  requested  Member  State  during  court 
proceedings in that State.31 

According to the Directive’s preamble (point 9), this presence or assistance on the territory 
of  another  Member  State  has  been  rendered  possible  ‘for  reasons  of  efficiency’.  It  was 
considered to be a step forward in recovery assistance, as it could lead to a more active role 
of the applicant Member State in the assistance process. 

31   Similar provisions have been laid down in the recent EU legislation concerning administrative cooperation for 
the assessment and control of VAT (Article 28(2) of regulation 904/2010), excise duties (Article 12(2), 2nd 
subparagraph,  of  regulation  389/2012)  and  other  taxes  (Article  11(2)  of  directive  2011/16).  There  as  well, 
these provisions appear to be used rarely or not at all. 

37 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
b.  However, it appears that none of these new possibilities has been used yet,32 for different 

reasons. 

  Most Member States reported that they did not yet have a case justifying the application 
of this measure (18 of 28). A few Member States also invoke other reasons: a lack of 
budgetary resources (6 of 28) or human resources (3 of 28), the costs of the visit (1 of 
28), the fact that officials are not yet aware of this possibility (1 of 28). 

  Some Member States (Finland, Czech Republic) pointed out that the implementation of 
this provision could be complicated, as this presence of national officials on the territory 
of another Member State requires an agreement between the applicant authority and the 
requested  authority,  in  accordance  with  the  arrangements  laid  down  by  the  requested 
authority.  

  Two Member States (Finland and Sweden) observe that the use of this measure is not 
necessary, as the requested Member State's recovery procedure is entrusted, and that it 
could even be sensitive for the applicant Member State to appear on the spot in order to 
secure the quality of the recovery in the requested State. 

6.2.3.4. Impact of the Fiscalis 2020 activities 

a.  The  Fiscalis  2020  activities  (project  groups  and  workshops)  enlarged  and  improved  the 
network  of  the  competent  national  authorities,  facilitating  subsequent  direct  contacts  that 
permitted  them  to  solve  more  easily  particular  problems  or  questions  concerning  specific 
requests for recovery assistance. 

b.  The  discussions  in  the  Fiscalis  2020  activities  resulted  in  a  number  of  suggestions  for 

improving mutual recovery assistance in practice, e.g.: 

-  

taxable  persons  may  request  refunds  of  VAT  credits  in  other  Member  States,  in 
accordance with Directive 2008/9/EU. These refund requests must be introduced in the 
Member State of establishment, which allows this Member State to check whether the 
request  relates  to  a  taxable  person  who  has  outstanding  tax  debts.  A  Fiscalis  2020 
workshop  has  allowed  to  raise  the  awareness  about  this  seizure  and  offsetting 
possibility,  and  to  discuss  practical  arrangements  for  the  communication  between  the 
Member States; 

-   on 11 and 12 September 2014, the Commission organised a Fiscalis 2020 workshop to 
discuss  (1°)  the  exchange  of  information  between  tax  enforcement  authorities,  social 
security authorities and other public authorities, and (2°) the access to information with 
regard to the registration of cars, boats and airplanes. It appeared that in most Member 
States,  there  was  insufficient  communication  between  these  authorities,  and  a  lack  of 
access to/exchange of information between them. This also has negative repercussions 
on  the  mutual  recovery  assistance.  Following  this  workshop,  the  exchange  of 
information  with  regard  to  vehicles  is  currently  being  discussed  within  the  Recovery 
Expert Group; 

- 

the Fiscalis 2020 workshop discussions on 27-28 October 2015 in Lisbon, which dealt 
with  the  use  of  precautionary  measures,  finally  led  to  a  consensus  to  complement  the 
electronic  request  form  with  information  to  facilitate  precautionary  measures  in  the 
requested Member State; 

32   Apart from one presence of officials in the tax offices of another Member State in the period 2015-2016. 

38 

 
 
 
                                                            
- 

at the Fiscalis 2020 workshop in Tallinn on 24-25 May 2016, Member States discussed 
best practices to retrace missing debtors. 

c.  As  the  exchange  of  information  on  the  development  of  national  recovery  facilities  and 
instruments  is  beneficial  for  all  Member  States,  the  Fiscalis  2020  workshops  organised 
since  October  2015  explicitly  provide  an  opportunity  for  all  Member  States  to  report  (in 
writing  and  orally)  about  new  developments  in  their  national  tax  collection  and  recovery 
legislation and practice.  

d.  The Fiscalis 2020 activities were also very useful to develop the electronic version of the 
request forms, and to provide training to the national officials who have to use these forms. 

e.  Despite the general positive evaluation of the Fiscalis 2020 activities, some concerns exist 

with regard the unequal level of participation of Member States.  

Some  participants  in  Fiscalis  2020  workshops  assist  in  a  passive  way,  limiting  their 
contribution  to  the  obligatory  elements  (a  written  reply  to  the  questionnaires  sent  in 
advance and a (short) presentation of actual developments in their country). The same could 
be  experienced  in  some  Fiscalis  2020  project  groups.  Some  participants  also  appeared  to 
have  serious  problems  to  express  themselves  in  the  working  language  of  these  meetings. 
Member States should therefore pay sufficient attention to the selection of their participants 
in the workshops and their candidates for the project groups. 

f.  The participation in the Fiscalis 2020 workshops is normally limited to one or two persons 
per  Member  State.  Although  participants  are  invited  to  report  to  their  national 
administrations about the information exchanged and the outcome of the discussions in the 
Fiscalis  2020  activities,  there  is  not  always  a  clear  evidence  that  this  information  is 
effectively  disseminated  and  used  within  the  national  administrations.  Therefore,  the 
Commission  services  ensure  that  reports  of  these  workshops  (including  all  presentations, 
national contributions to questionnaires, and an overview of the conclusions) are put at the 
disposal of all tax authorities via the dedicated websites. 

g.  Several  Member  States  have  expressed  the  wish  to  have  more  guidance  on  the 
interpretation and application of the EU rules in this field. It appears that not all tax officials 
are  fully  aware  of  the  possibilities  and  requirements  for  requesting  this  assistance. 
Questions raised in the Recovery Expert Group and questions submitted to the Commission 
also confirm that  the rules  and possibilities  for recovery assistance are not  always clearly 
understood. 

Several  actions  have  already  been  taken  to  better  inform  the  national  tax  authorities  (e.g. 
Fiscalis 2020 seminars and workshops, explanatory notes for the national tax authorities, a 
newsletter  on  national  and  international  developments  in  the  field  of  tax  collection  and 
recovery and recovery assistance).  

However, the participation in Fiscalis 2020 events is somehow limited and specific training 
programs for national authorities could still be useful.  

39 

 
 
 
6.3. To what extent the provisions are relevant to the needs of the Member 
States?  

6.3.1. Did the Directive meet the needs for which it was adopted? 

6.3.1.1. Main priorities of Member States with regard to mutual recovery assistance 

a.  The  main  priorities  of  Member  States  with  regard  to  mutual  recovery  assistance  are: 
improving  the  revenue  collection,  reducing  tax  fraud  and  evasion,  and  reducing  the 
administrative burden and cost related to recovery assistance. Tax recovery assistance helps 
directly to achieve these goals, but also indirectly: the existence of recovery assistance has a 
preventive effect and stimulates tax compliance. 

b.  The  main  difficulties  reported  by  national  administrations  with  regard  to  mutual  tax 

recovery assistance fall into different categories:  

  some  are  related  to  the  cooperation  between  the  tax  authorities  of  different  Member 
States. Many Member States report they face a lack of staff. The exchange between the 
countries  involved  is  time-consuming  and  it  may  take  a  long  time  before  replies  to 
assistance  requests  are  received.  It  is  even  stated  that  "some  countries"  are  not  really 
helpful (see point 6.1.1.3.); 

  other problems relate to the person of the debtor and the specific recovery possibilities. 
The assets found may be insufficient to recover the whole claim, or it may be difficult 
to find the debtor and his/her assets;  
the assistance also seems to be negatively affected by differences in national legislations 
and  administrative  practices  (different  competences  of  tax  authorities;  different 
conditions  for  enforcement  or  precautionary  measures;  differences  in  available  or 
accessible information, different limitation period arrangements, etc.).  

 

c.  The  Directive  provides  for  the  same  types  of  recovery  assistance  as  other  bilateral  or 
multilateral  agreements  for  recovery  assistance:  requests  for  information,  requests  for 
notification,  requests  for  recovery  and  precautionary  measures.  The  main  differences 
between  the  Directive  and  these  other  legal  instruments  relate  to  the  broad  scope  of  the 
Directive  (which  is  much  broader  than  all  other  agreements),  the  use  of  the  uniform 
instruments  and  the  detailed  arrangements  for  the  execution  of  requests  and  the 
communication between the authorities concerned. 

Several  authors  have  observed  that  the  mechanism  of  the  EU  Directive  permits  a  much 
more efficient regime for assistance in tax recovery than other agreements.33 

d.   Article  27(1)  of  Council  Directive  2010/24/EU  provides  that  the  Directive  is  without 
prejudice  to  the  fulfilment  of  any  obligation  to  provide  wider  assistance  ensuing  from 
bilateral or multilateral agreements or arrangements, including for the notification of legal 
or extra-legal acts. 

33   A. BAL, "Extraterritorial enforcement of tax claims", Bulletin for International Taxation, 2011, (598), 602; F. 
CARRA RICHTER, "Exchange of information for the Assistance in the Collection of Taxes under Article 27 
of the OECD Model", in GÜNTHER and TÜCHLER, Exchange of Information for Tax Purposes, (131), 138; 
I. DE TROYER, "Recovery assistance in the EU: Evaluation of Directive 2010/24/EU: Time for an Update?", 
EC Tax Review 2014/5, (284), 292.  

40 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
In  practice,  the  very  wide  scope  (Article  2),  the  rather  broad  conditions  for  assistance 
requests (Articles 5, 8, 11 and 16) and the priority rule (Article 27(1)) of the Directive have 
resulted in a situation where other bilateral or multilateral agreements are rarely used.34 In 
fact,  most  Member  States  (Austria,  Bulgaria,  Croatia,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia, 
Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia and Slovak Republic) (almost) 
never use any other legal instrument for tax recovery assistance with other Member States. 

e.   Some  Member  States  (Belgium,  Germany,  Greece,  France,  Italy,  Luxemburg,  the 
Netherlands,  Poland)  however  reported  that  they  sometimes  use  other  legal  instruments 
(normally  bilateral  conventions  with  specific  other  Member  States;  exceptionally  the 
Council  of  Europe-OECD  convention  or  the  Benelux  convention)  for  older  claims  or  for 
claims below the threshold of 1500 €, as: 

-  

-  

the Directive does not oblige Member States to grant assistance if the initial request for 
assistance is made in respect of claims which are more than 5 – or sometimes 10 years – 
old, dating from the due date of the claim in the applicant Member State to the date of 
the initial request for assistance (Article 18(2)); 

the Directive does not oblige Member States to take recovery or precautionary measures 
at the request of other Member States if the total amount of the claims is less than 1500 
€ (Article 18(3)). 

This tendency of some Member States to request assistance for older and lower claims on 
the basis of other legal instruments also raises some concerns: 

-   an efficiency concern: the use of other legal instruments implies the application of other 
conditions  and  requirements  and  thus  inevitably  increases  the  complexity  for  the 
officials concerned; 

-   a  legal  concern:  as  Article  18  of  the  Directive  does  not  forbid  the  requested  Member 
State to provide recovery assistance for older or lower claims, Member States providing 
recovery assistance for such claims on the basis of a different legal instrument take the 
risk that tax debtors argue that this recovery assistance is invalid because it is violating 
the priority of the EU Directive.  

f.   One  Member  State  (the  Netherlands)  observed  that  the  exchange  of  information  without 
prior request (Article 6 of the Directive) is now limited to refunds of taxes or duties, other 
than  VAT.  This  Member  State  exchanges  other  information  without  prior  request  on  the 
basis of a bilateral tax agreement. 

6.3.1.2. Problems encountered with the Directive by applicant States 

a.  No  major  problems  were  reported,  but  several  suggestions  have  been  made  for  further 

improvement of the EU legislation (see point 6.3.2.). 

b.  Member  States  regularly  make  suggestions  for  the  further  development  of  the  electronic 
request forms. These electronic request forms are indeed continuously improved. The latest 
version  is  applied  by  the  Member  States  from  1  June  2016,  and  a  new  update  has  been 
launched in 2017. The next step should be the introduction of the Central Platform for the 
e-forms (foreseen for 1 January 2019). 

34   It seems that the Nordic Convention is still regularly applied between Denmark, Sweden and Finland. 

41 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
6.3.1.3. Problems encountered with the Directive by requested States 

a.  13 Member States reported that, as requested States, they do not have major problems with 

the Directive.  

b.  Other Member States reported that there are some differences in interpretation, and that the 

broad scope makes it sometimes difficult to define the competent authority. 

6.3.1.4. Effects of the broadening of the scope 

a.  The  statistics  communicated  by  the  Member  States  make  it  clear  that  most  recovery 
assistance  cases  still  relate  to  VAT  and  income  taxes,  i.e.  claims  for  which  mutual 
assistance already existed under the former Directive: 35 

Table 14: Nature of the claims for which recovery assistance is requested, on the basis of 
the amounts of the claims concerned: 

2011 (26 MS) 
2012 (26 MS) 
2013 (26 MS) 
2014 (27 MS) 
2015 (27 MS) 
2016 (27 MS) 

VAT 

62,48 % 
42 % 
57,83 % 
26,06 % 
49,73 % 
40,16 % 

income/capital 
taxes 
28,68 % 
20 % 
18,37 % 
41,62 % 
36,98 % 
24,64 % 

customs 

3,44 % 
14 % 
1,67 % 
7,15 % 
3,88 % 
6,16 % 

other taxes 
and claims36 
5,40 % 
24 % 
22,13 % 
25,17 % 
9,41 % 
29,04 % 

In 2013, 2015 and 2016, the biggest amounts in recovery requests related to VAT; in 2014, 
direct taxes represented the biggest amount in recovery requests.  

c.  However, most messages are sent from the mailboxes set up for recovery assistance in the 
field  of  direct  taxes (see  table  15  below).  On  average,  the  number  of  messages  sent  from 
direct tax mailboxes in the period 2013-2016 was twice as high as the number of messages 
sent from VAT mailboxes.  

35  Statistics based on the data reported by 27 Member States (average of requests received and sent). 
36   It should be noted that this category also includes excise duties, which were already included in the scope of 
the  EU  legislation  before  the  adoption  of  Directive  2010/24/EU.  In  the  past,  excise  duties  represented  a 
considerable part of the recovery assistance requests (2008: 9,61 %; 2009: 6,62 %; 2010: 20,46 %) and it can 
be presumed that they still constitute a considerable part of the present category of "other taxes and claims". 
(Since the introduction of Directive 2010/24/EU, Member States do no longer provide separate statistics on 
the category of excise duties.) 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table 15: total number of all messages (requests and follow-up messages) sent by all 
Member States (2013-2016):37 

 claims relating to taxes on income and capital 

 claims relating to VAT 

 claims relating to customs duties 

 other claims 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

average

d.  Of course, the fact that VAT and income/capital taxes represent the biggest tax categories 
in  mutual  recovery  assistance  is  not  surprising:  these  taxes  are  the  most  important  ones, 
involving the largest amounts. 

However, a majority of Member States confirmed that it is useful to have the scope of the 
Directive  extended.    These  Member  States  (16  of  27)  consider  that  the broadening  of  the 
scope  has  improved  the  collection  of  tax  revenue  via  mutual  recovery  assistance.  A 
considerable number of Member States (10 of 27) also reported that creating the possibility 
to request recovery assistance for other taxes and duties than those falling within the pre-
existing categories has had a positive effect on the payment and collection of these taxes in 
their own Member State.  

37   See also table 13 under point 6.2.3.2. 

43 

    
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
6.3.2. Are there other needs? 

6.3.2.1. Need for a further extension of the scope? 

a.  Several  Member  States  have  suggested  a  further  extension  of  the  scope  of  the  recovery 
assistance Directive, in order to include other (public) claims for which there is no recovery 
assistance  framework  yet  (Belgium,  Estonia,  France,  the  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Romania, 
Spain, Sweden). 

Several  Member  States  also  deplored  the  fact  that  recovery  assistance  for  social  security 
claims is organised differently.  

The current rules  concerning  assistance  for the recovery of  social  security claims are laid 
down  in  different  legal  instruments,  adopted  on  a  different  legal  basis  (Regulations 
883/2004  and  987/2009).  This  social  security  claims  legislation  follows  the  former 
legislation  concerning  tax  recovery  assistance  (Directive  2008/55/EC).  On  13  December 
2016 the Commission has presented a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  to  amend  Regulation  883/2004  on  the  coordination  of  social  security 
systems and the implementing Regulation 987/2009. If adopted, this new legislation would 
align the recovery assistance provisions for social security claims to the current rules for tax 
recovery assistance. 

In  any  case,  it  is  considered  to  be  a  disadvantage  that  the  communication  network  is 
different, which implies that it is not possible to send joint requests, covering tax and social 
security claims. The obligation to send two different requests for each type of these claims 
is an extra administrative burden for the Member States where recovery of taxes and social 
security claims is done by the same authorities.38  

The  Belgian  Court  of  Audit  in  its  report  of  October  2014  also  recommended  a  further 
extension of the scope, e.g. to alimony payments (which in Belgium are recovered by the 
tax authorities if they are not paid spontaneously), and other claims linked to decisions in 
criminal matters, and social security claims.39 

b.  In  the  replies  to  the  evaluation  questionnaire,  only  3  Member  States  (Italy,  Luxemburg, 

Spain) consider that the scope is somewhat unclear. 

On this point, it can be noted that several questions have also been raised in the Recovery 
Expert  Group,  with  regard  to  the  possibility  to  use  the  Directive  for  recovery  assistance 
with  regard  to  the  following  claims:  social  security  claims  that  are  considered  as  taxes 
under the national legislation of the Member State concerned, road tolls and user charges, 
customs  penalties,  and  recovery  of  illegal  state  aid  consisting  in  tax  exemptions.  These 
questions have been discussed in the Recovery Expert Group and clarifications have been 
or will be provided in the explanatory notes. 

38   The recovery of taxes and of all or part of the social security (or social benefits) claims is currently assigned to 

the same authorities in the following Member States:   
- for all social security claims: DK, EE, HR, MT, NL, RO, SI, SE; 
- for some social security claims: BG, AT, FI, UK; 
- in IT, both types of claims are recovered by the same  recovery agent (but different authorities).  

39   Belgian Court of audit, Recommendation 5.2.1. (p. 47 of the report). 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
6.3.2.2. Other changes suggested  

a.  Other  improvements  or  amendments  of  Directive  2010/24/EU  have  been  suggested  by 

Member States. 

-   Requests  for  information,  automated  and  spontaneous  exchange  of  information  and 

access to databases in other Member States (requested by several Member States) 

At this moment, Directive 2010/24/EU mainly provides for exchange of information at 
request (Article 5). Exchange of information without prior request is limited to refunds 
of taxes other than VAT. Several Member States have asked to extend this legal basis 
offered by the Directive, in order to allow more spontaneous exchange of information. 
As  Member  States  increasingly  have  to  deal  with  tax  debtors  having  assets  in  one  or 
more other Member States, often in connection with fraudulent constructions to cloud 
them,  several  Member  States  expressed  the  wish  to  have  more  opportunities  to 
exchange information. 

It  has  also  been  suggested  to  introduce  a  specific  provision  on  the  handling  of  bulk 
information requests and to examine whether direct access can or should be granted to 
specific databases of other Member States, respecting the data protection rules, if these 
databases are relevant for tax recovery purposes. 

For debts over a specific value, it has been suggested to introduce a requirement that the 
applicant State must make a request for information to establish the assets and financial 
status of the taxpayer before a request for recovery is made. 

-  Notification 

It has been suggested to confirm that renewed notifications in the phase of recovery or 
precautionary measures are not needed if the debtor was already notified before. 

It  was  also  suggested  to  clarify  the  indication  of  third  parties  in  the  UIPE  and  the 
notification of claims to third parties.  

-  Facilitating the use of precautionary measures 

The use of precautionary measures is important, in particular in view of the fight against 
fraud. At the same time, it is necessary to guarantee the rights of defence of the debtors. 
The  use  of  precautionary  measures  should  be  justified  (urgency,  proportionality).  At 
present,  there  is  no  simple  answer  to  the  question  whether  the  justification  of  such 
measures can or should be checked by the administrative or judicial authorities of the 
applicant  and/or  requested  Member  State.  Several  Member  States  have  asked  to 
consider the introduction of a uniform instrument permitting precautionary measures.  

In  this  regard,  one  Member  State  also  observed  that  decisions  for  precautionary 
measures  should  be  executed,  irrespective  of  whether  the  requested  Member  State's 
legislation would allow the same for its own claims. 

It was further suggested to provide for a swift procedure for freezing and preservation 
of bank accounts.  

45 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-  Conditions with regard to the obligation to provide assistance 

  Clarifications  and  amendments  have  been  requested  with  regard  to  the  conditions 
relating  to  the  age  of  the  debt,  as  the  current  rules  of  Article  18(2)  of  the  Directive 
(copied  from  the  former  Directive)  are  considered  to  be  rather  complex  (suggestion 
concerning  the  calculation  of  the  age  period;  suggestion  to  avoid  the  need  for 
comparing national laws; suggestion to abolish this condition or to provide exceptions). 

  Amendments  have  also  been  suggested  with  regard  to  the  threshold,  which  now  only 
exists  for  requests  for  recovery  and  precautionary  measures  (suggestion  to  extend  the 
threshold to information or notification requests). 

-  Other suggestions for specific amendments 

  suggestion for a provision confirming that the debtor should not be informed about a 

request for information to another Member State;40 

  suggestion to amend Art. 23 of the Directive, extending the possibilities to use the 
information  communicated pursuant to the Directive (e.g. by confirming explicitly 
that this information may also be used for the assessment of tax claims); 

  suggestion  to  clarify  the  treatment  of  costs  made  by  the  applicant  Member  State 
after  sending  a  request  for  assistance  (which  are  not  mentioned  in  the  request  for 
assistance nor in the UIPE of that request); 

  suggestion to facilitate the recovery assistance for recovery of VAT refunds, which 
is now confronted with the problem that a request for assistance must be sent very 
quickly, in order to timely block the refund of the VAT in the other Member State 
(as  some  Member  States  execute  requests  for  VAT  refunds,  made  in  accordance 
with Directive 2008/9/EC, within a short time period); 

  suggestion  to  improve  cooperation  between  tax  authorities  in  cross-border 
insolvency procedures (e.g. by providing an obligation to represent tax authorities of 
other  Member  States  in  the  insolvency  proceedings  opened  in  the  own  Member 
State;  

  suggestions to improve the communication between the competent authorities, e.g. 
with  regard  to  a  reimbursement  agreement  if  recovery  measures  imply  large 
amounts  of  costs  or  in  case  of  unfounded  recovery  requests  (in  line  with  Article 
20(2),  second  subparagraph  of  the  Directive)  or  with  regard  to  situations  where  a 
payment  agreement  has  been  concluded  between  the  applicant  Member  State  and 
the  debtor.  Some  Member  States  wish  to  have  more  precise  rules  on  the 
communication and cooperation with regard to these matters.  

  Use  of  the  electronic  request  forms  and  the  communication  network  in  relations  with 

third countries 

The electronic request forms for recovery assistance are developed in such a way that 
they  can  not  only  be  used  for  recovery  assistance  in  accordance  with  Directive 

40   In  the  meantime,  this  question  has  been  the  subject  of  a  judgement  of  the  EU  Court  of  Justice,  in  a  case 
relating  to  Council  Directive  77/799/EEC  of  19.12.1977  concerning  mutual  assistance  by  the  competent 
authorities of the Member States in the field of direct taxation, which is now replaced by Council Directive 
2011/16/EU (EUCJ 22.10.2013, C-276/12, Sabou). 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
2010/24/EU, but also for recovery assistance based on other legal instruments (bilateral 
agreements  or  multilateral  agreements).  For  recovery  assistance  between  EU  Member 
States,  this  possibility  is  rarely  used,  given  the  broad  scope  of  the  Directive.  Member 
States  can  only  use  other  legal  instruments  for  their  recovery  assistance  in  those 
situations  where  these  other  instruments  permit  them  to  have  a  wider  recovery 
assistance than under the conditions of the Directive.  

However, this flexibility to use the electronic request forms for recovery assistance on 
the  basis  of  other  legal  instruments  implies  that  they  could  also  be  of  use  for  such 
assistance  with  third  countries.  So  far,  this  use  of  the  electronic  request  forms  is  not 
possible because there is no legal basis for such an extended use of these forms. Several 
Member  States  have  indicated  that  they  would  welcome  the  possibility  to  use  the 
electronic request forms in their relations with third countries.41 

In this regard, the recently negotiated agreement between the European Union and the 
Kingdom  of  Norway  on  administrative  cooperation,  combating  fraud  and  recovery  of 
claims in the field of VAT serves as an example. It provides that the recovery assistance 
request forms used within the EU will also be used with Norway for recovery assistance 
with regard to VAT claims. Moreover, the same electronic communication network and 
the standard forms may also be used for recovery assistance regarding other claims, if 
such recovery assistance is possible under other bilateral or multilateral legally binding 
instruments  on  administrative  cooperation  between  a  Member  State  and  Norway 
(Article 40(4) of this Agreement). 

b.  The  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  also  made  a  number  of  suggestions  and 
comments  with  regard  to  possible  amendments  of  the  existing  legislation.42  On  the  one 
hand, these responses emphasized the need to have an effective and efficient system of tax 
recovery  assistance  (e.g.  with  regard  to  the  conditions  governing  requests  for  recovery 
assistance,  relating  to  the  recovery  of  contested  claims  or  the  threshold  for  providing 
assistance;  the  need  to  strengthen  the  use  of  precautionary  measures  in  cross-border 
assistance;  and  the  need  to  have  a  strict  approach  towards  countries  not  providing  such 
assistance). On the other hand, several respondents in the public consultation also observed 
the need to respect the taxpayers' rights.  

6.3.3.   Did the introduction of Directive 2010/24/EU have an impact on the legal 

protection of the tax debtors in the Member States?  

6.3.3.1. The legal protection of the debtor 

a.  Information communicated pursuant to this Directive is covered by the obligation of official 
secrecy and enjoys the protection extended to similar information under the national law of 
the Member State which received it (Art. 23(1) of the Directive). No problem has ever been 

41   The  legal  basis  for  the  extended  use  could  also  determine  the  financial  arrangements  concerning  the  third 

country's link (interface) to the communication network or concerning possible translation costs. 

42   See the summary report of the public consultation for a complete overview. 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
reported with regard to the obligation to respect the secrecy of the information exchanged 
on the basis of the recovery assistance Directive.43 

b.  With regard to the execution of requests for recovery assistance, the requested authorities 
have to use the powers and procedures provided under their national laws (Art. 9, 13(1) and 
17 of the Directive). When applying these national laws, the requested authorities have to 
respect the tax debtors' rights. 

As the Directive does not regulate the execution of the assistance requests, it does not have 
any  effect  on  the  legal  protection  of  tax  debtors  or  other  persons  liable  for  the  taxes  for 
which  recovery  assistance  is  requested.  This  view  was  also  confirmed  by  the  Member 
States' replies to the questionnaire.44 

43   See  also  R.  SEER  and  I.  GABERT  (ed.)  Mutual  assistance  and  information  exchange  (2009  EATLP 

Congress, Santiago de Compostela), 2010. 

44   Half of the Member States explicitly stated that the introduction of the Directive 2010/24/EU didn't have any 
particular effect on the legal protection of tax debtors or other persons liable for the taxes. 11 Member States 
did not express any opinion on this point. 

48 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
6.3.3.2. Information about tax claims and assistance requests to the debtors 

a.  The  EU  Court  of  Justice  has  stated  that,  in  the  framework  of  the  mutual  assistance 
introduced  pursuant  to  the  former  mutual  recovery  assistance  Directive  76/308/EEC,  in 
order for the addressee of an instrument permitting enforcement to be placed in a position 
to  enforce  his  rights,  he  must  receive  the  notification  of  that  instrument  in  an  official 
language of the Member State in which the requested authority is situated. The notification 
should make it possible for the addressee to understand the subject-matter of the claim and 
the cause of action.45  

b.  The adoption of a uniform standard form for the notification of instruments and decisions 
relating to the claim (UNF; Article 8(1) of Directive 2010/24/EU46), which is to be used by 
the  requested  Member  State  when  notifying  such  documents  at  the  request  of  another 
Member  State,  and  the  uniform  instrument  permitting  enforcement  measures  in  the 
requested  Member  State  (UIPE;  Art.  12(1)  of  Directive  2010/24/EU47)  have  resolved  the 
problems  of  recognition  and  translation  of  instruments  emanating  from  another  Member 
State: these documents can be translated automatically into all official languages of the EU 
Member States. The use of these instruments enables the Member States to ensure that the 
tax  debtors  are  sufficiently  informed  about  the  request  and  about  their  rights  and 
obligations, in an official language of the Member State in which the requested authority is 
situated.  

Some Member States explicitly emphasized these positive effects of the UNF and the UIPE 
for the debtors or other persons affected (Belgium, Finland, Spain). Their view was shared 
by  the  few  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  which  reported  about  their  personal 
experience with these uniform instruments: they confirmed that the UNF and the UIPE are 
indeed useful.  

c.  This possibility to translate these documents in all official languages allows the requested 
authorities to use the version of their official language. However, the debtor concerned may 
originally come from another Member State, so that his native language is still another one. 
The  Recovery  Expert  Group  therefore  developed  an  additional  document  "note  to  the 
addressee",  which  the  requested  Member  States  can  use  if  they  want  to  explain  to  the 
addressee  that  he  can  ask  for  another  language  version  of  the  UNF  or  the  UIPE  than  the 
version in the official language of the requested Member State. 

  Although Member States are not obliged to use this additional document, several Member 

States reported that they use it on a regular or exceptional basis. 

d.  Following a Member State suggestion made at the Fiscalis workshop in Brussels in April 
2015, the 2016 release of the electronic request forms also allows Member States to make a 
Direct Notification Form (DNF). This document may be used in case of direct notifications 

45   EUCJ 14 January 2010, C-233/08, Kyrian. 
46   The UNF indeed has  to contain the name, address and other contact details regarding the office responsible 
with regard to the notified document, and the office where further information can be obtained concerning the 
notified  document  or  concerning  the  possibilities  to  contest  the  payment  obligation  (Article  8(1),  2nd 
subparagraph, (d) of the Directive). 

47   The UIPE has to contain the name, address and other contact details regarding the office responsible for the 
assessment of the claim and the office where further information can be obtained concerning the claim or the 
possibilities for contesting the payment obligation (Article 12(1), third subparagraph, (c) of the Directive). 

49 

 
 
 
                                                            
(as foreseen under Article 9(2) of the Directive48). This DNF contains the same information 
as a UNF form, and it can also be translated in all official EU languages. Its function is to 
accompany  the  documents  which  are  directly  notified  by  the  applicant  Member  State,  so 
that the debtor can be easily informed in a language that he understands. 

e.  It appears from the case-law that debtors sometimes only react once recovery measures are 
launched  in  the  requested  Member  State,  claiming  that  they  were  never  notified  before. 
Such  disputes  are  not  related  to  the  use  of  Directive  2010/24/EU;  they  concern  the 
effectiveness of national notification procedures. Such disputes may be brought before the 
national courts of the Member State which effected the notification (applicant or requested 
Member State). It is up to these courts to check the factual circumstances and to guarantee 
the right of the debtor to be properly informed as well as the need to avoid abuse by debtors 
wrongly invoking such arguments to prevent or contest the enforcement of the claim.  

6.3.3.3. Guidance on the functioning of the EU recovery assistance framework 

a.  Several  initiatives  have  been  taken  to  improve  the  publicly  available  information 

concerning the EU tax recovery assistance framework:  

-  

the Commission services have published a number of questions and answers on the tax 
debtors' rights and obligations on the website of the European Commission;49  

-   on this website, tax practitioners and other persons involved in tax recovery assistance 
proceedings also find information on national, EU and international developments in the 
field  of  tax  collection  and  enforcement,  in  the  newsletter  "EU  and  International  Tax 
Collection News". 

b.  Respondents to the public consultation clearly expressed the wish that the EU should take 
more actions to explain the legislation on mutual tax recovery assistance (although most of 
them  at  the  same  time  admitted  that  they  were  not  aware  of  the  information  already 
published on the Commission's website).  

  More explanation of this complex legislation would be beneficial. Following a suggestion 
of the Commission services, the Recovery Expert Group in its meeting of 22 February 2017 
already  agreed  to  publish  the  explanatory  notes  that  it  has  adopted  with  regard  to  the 
interpretation of the EU legislation on tax recovery assistance. Moreover, the Commission 
services also consider organising training courses or seminars for practitioners dealing with 
tax recovery assistance issues. 

48   Article 9(2) of Directive 2010/24 provides that: "The applicant authority shall make a request for notification 
pursuant to this article only when it is unable to notify in accordance with the rules governing the notification 
of  the  document  concerned  in  the  applicant  Member  State,  or  when  such  notification  would  give  rise  to 
disproportionate difficulties." 

49   https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/tax-cooperation-control/tax-recovery_en. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
6.4. Could Member States achieve similar results without acting at the EU 
level? 

6.4.1. Is recovery assistance in the interest of all EU Member States? 

6.4.1.1. Effective use of the Directive by all Member States 

a.  The  extent  to  which  the  EU  tax  recovery  assistance  framework  is  used,  is  very  different 
from one Member State to another. Moreover, some Member States are more requested to 
provide assistance than others. These differences obviously relate to geographic, economic 
and socio-demographic situations and developments. However, all Member States send and 
receive assistance requests that are based on the EU Directive. 

The  following  graphics  present  a  comparison  of  the  use  of  the  EU  recovery  assistance 
framework  by  the  individual  Member  States,  in  the  period  2010-2011  (before  the 
implementation  of  Directive  2010/24/EU)  and  in  the  period  2013-2016  (on  the  basis  of 
Directive  2010/24/EU).50  It  appears  from  these  statistics  that  the  numbers  of  requests  are 
geographically spread: some Member States send or receive much more requests than other 
Member States.  

Table 16: average yearly number of requests for information sent by each Member State 

  = average 2010-2011;    

  = average 2013-2016 

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK

50   The year 2012 was not taken into account here, as this was an atypical year, because of delays and difficulties 

related to the national implementation of the Directive (see point 5). 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Table 17: average yearly number of requests for information received by each Member State 

  = average 2010-2011;    

  = average 2013-2016 

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK

Table 18: average yearly number of requests for notification sent by each Member State  

  = average 2010-2011;    

  = average 2013-2016 

52 

 
 
 
 
 
800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

BE BG CE DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK

Table 19: average yearly number of requests for notification received by each Member State  

  = average 2010-2011;    

  = average 2013-2016 

BE BG CE DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 20: average yearly number of requests for precautionary measures sent by each Member 
State     

  = average 2013-2016 

25

20

15

10

5

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK

Table 21: average yearly number of requests for precautionary measures received by each 
Member State     

  = average 2013-2016 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK

Table 22: average yearly number of requests for recovery sent by each Member State  

  = average 2010-2011;    

  = average 2013-2016 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HUMT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK

Table 23: average yearly number of requests for recovery received by each Member State 

  = average 2010-2011;    

  = average 2013-2016 

3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HUMT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK

55 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
6.4.1.2. Loyal cooperation between EU Member States 

a.   In their replies to the questionnaire, as well as in Fiscalis 2020 workshops, Member States 
generally expressed a positive opinion on the assistance provided by other Member States. 
Nevertheless, several delegates reported that the situation varies from country to country.  

On several occasions, delegates expressed the feeling that the priority and preference which 
Member States give to the collection and recovery of their own tax claims,51 had a negative 
impact  on  their  recovery  assistance  to  other  Member  States.  In  their  replies  to  the 
questionnaire, several Member States considered that the following elements constitute big 
external obstacles to the effective functioning of the Directive: 

  a lack of resources on the national level (17 Member States) (see point 6.1.1.3.); 
  cross-border recovery assistance is not a priority for tax administrations (10 Member 

States) (see also point 6.1.1.3.); 
reciprocity concerns (5 Member States).  

 

b.  It  seems  that  Member  States  (first)  try  to  solve  cooperation  problems  at  bilateral  level, 
trying to maintain good relationships in view of future assistance needs. However, problems 
encountered in one bilateral relationship could also happen in other bilateral relationships. 
Sharing these experiences  and information  about bilateral discussions and solutions could 
thus also be of help to other Member States.  

In  recent  times,  the  Commission  services  are  more  frequently  contacted  for  advice  on 
specific  questions,  in  particular  when  the  Member  States  have  a  divergent  view  on  the 
interpretation of the EU legislation concerned. In these situations, the Commission services 
also bring these questions to  the attention  of other Member States,  in the  meetings of the 
Recovery Expert Group. 

c.  Since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  recovery  assistance  framework  set  up  under  Directive 
2010/24/EU, the Commission was asked 3 times to intervene in situations where Member 
States complained about a lack of information about the follow-up of assistance requests in 
other Member States.52 One of these cases related to a specific case; the two others related 
to several cases.  

In this regard, the Commission understands that the requested authorities do not like to be 
"accused"  by  other  Member  States.  (Each  of  the  reported  cases  related  to  a  requested 
Member  State  which  receives  several  hundreds  of  recovery  requests  a  year,  and  errors  or 
failures  in  the  follow-up  or  in  the  communication  between  the  Member  States  on  these 
cases  may  always  occur.)  However,  problems  which  cannot  be  openly  discussed  lead  to 
irritation  and  frustration  on  both  sides,  which  in  the  long  run  affect  the  mutual  recovery 
assistance  in  its  entirety.  Moreover,  such  complaints  are  useful,  as  the  identification  and 
analysis  of  the  reported  problems  may  also  reveal  possibilities  to  improve  the  assistance 
framework for all Member States.  

51   See Article 13(1), third subparagraph of Council Directive 2010/24/EU: "The requested Member State shall 
not  be  obliged  to  grant  other  Member  States'  claims  preferences  accorded  to  similar  claims  arising  in  that 
Member State, except where otherwise agreed between the Member States concerned or provided in the law 
of the requested Member State." 

52   The requested authority has to acknowledge receipt of the request for assistance. This has to be done "as soon 
as possible and in any event within seven calendar days of such receipt" (Art. 7, para. 1; Art. 12(1); Art. 19(1) 
of  Commission  implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  1189/2011).  Art.  20(2)  of  Commission  implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 1189/2011 provides that, not later than at the end of each six-month period following the 
date  of  acknowledgement  of  the  receipt  of  the  request,  the  requested  authority  shall  inform  the  applicant 
authority of the state of progress or the outcome of the procedure for recovery or for precautionary measures. 

56 

 
                                                            
6.4.2.   Does the EU provide incentives to improve tax recovery assistance? 

6.4.2.1.  EU  tax  recovery  assistance:  a  cornerstone  for  the  proper  functioning  of  the 
internal market 

a.  Traditionally,  initiatives  for  mutual  recovery  assistance  have  always  been  based  on 
considerations  relating  to  the  "mutual"  interest  of  the  contracting  States.  Recovery 
assistance was only provided to another State insofar as the State providing this assistance 
could  also  obtain  a  benefit  (recovery  assistance  or  other  benefit)  from  the  other  State. 
Recovery  assistance  between  EU  Member  States  however  also  serves  another  goal:  "it 
contributes to the proper functioning of the internal market. It ensures fiscal neutrality and 
has  allowed Member States  to  remove discriminatory  protective measures in  cross-border 
transactions  designed  to  prevent  fraud  and  budgetary  losses".53  In  this  way,  providing 
mutual  recovery  assistance  is  thus  in  the  interest  of  all  EU  Member  States  (and  of  their 
citizens and companies), despite the unequal use of the assistance framework. This should 
be  an  incentive  for  all  Member  States  to  provide  sufficient  resources  for  this  recovery 
assistance. 

This single market is an important achievement of the EU and fundamental to its stability 
and  prosperity.  When  levying  taxes,  Member  States  are  thus  expected  to  respect  the 
freedom of establishment, the free movement of persons, goods and capital, as well as the 
basic principle of non-discrimination.54 In several cases before the EU Court of Justice, in 
particular concerning exit taxes,55 Member States that were accused of violating these basic 
principles have tried to justify their national tax systems by underlining that the existence of 
the tax recovery assistance Directive did not guarantee an effective recovery of the tax at 
stake. The Court has always been reluctant to accept this argument.56  

53   Point 1 of the preamble of the Directive. 
54   See for instance EUCJ, 11.03.2004, C-9/02, Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant, point 51. 
55   Exit taxes have the function of ensuring that where a taxpayer moves assets or its tax residence out of the tax 
jurisdiction  of  a  State,  that  State  taxes  the  economic  value  of  any  capital  gain  created  in  its  territory  even 
though  that  gain  has  not  yet  been  realised  at  the  time  of  the  exit.  (point  10  of  the  preamble  of  Council 
Directive 2016/1164). 

56   See for instance case C-371/10, 29.11.2011 National Grid Indus, point 78, relating to the former tax recovery 
assistance  Directive  2008/55/EC:  Next,  (…)  the  existing  machinery  for  mutual  assistance  between  the 
authorities of the Member States is sufficient to enable the Member State of origin to check the truthfulness of 
the returns made by companies which have opted for deferred payment of the tax. Since the tax is definitively 
determined at the time when the company, because of the transfer of its place of effective management, ceases 
to obtain profits taxable in the Member State of origin, the assistance of the host Member State will concern 
not the correct ascertainment of the tax but only its recovery. Article 4(1) of Council Directive 2008/55/EC of 
26 May 2008 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other 
measures  (OJ  2008  L 150,  p. 28)  provides  that  ‘[a]t  the  request  of  the  applicant  authority,  the  requested 
authority shall provide any information which would be useful to the applicant authority in the recovery of its 
claim’.  That  directive  thus  enables  the  Member  State  of  origin  to  obtain  information  from  the  competent 
authority of the host Member State on whether or not certain assets of a company which has transferred its 
place of effective management to the latter Member State have been realised, in so far as the information is 
necessary to enable the Member State of origin to recover a tax debt which arose at the time of that transfer. 
Moreover,  Directive  2008/55,  in  particular  Articles  5  to  9,  provides  the  authorities  of  the  Member  State  of 
origin with a framework of cooperation and assistance allowing them actually to recover the tax debt in the 
host Member State.". 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
b.  The Court of Justice has always reiterated that it is up to the Member States to make sure 
that  the  EU  legal  framework  for  tax  recovery  assistance  is  effectively  used.  Accordingly, 
the  Commission  has  always  emphasized  that  Member  States  should  make  full  use  of  the 
possibilities offered by the mutual assistance Directive.  

A  clear  illustration  can  be  found  in  the  area  of  exit  taxation,  where  the  effective 
administrative  cooperation is  key to  ensuring  the effective protection of the exit  State tax 
base.57 The case-law in this  field resulted in Article 5(2) of Directive 2016/116458, which 
confirms  that  a  taxpayer  shall  be  given  the  right  to  defer  the  payment  of  an  exit  tax  by 
paying it in instalment over five years, if a taxpayer transfers assets or its tax residence to 
another Member State or to a third country that is party to the EEA Agreement, if that third 
country  has  concluded  an  agreement  with  the  Member  State  of  the  taxpayer  or  with  the 
Union  on  the  mutual  assistance  for  the  recovery  of  tax  claims,  equivalent  to  the  mutual 
assistance provided for in Council Directive 2010/24/EU.  

6.4.2.2. Advantage of a joint EU approach in recovery assistance 

a.  The  EU  legislation  on  tax  recovery  assistance  provides  a  harmonised  set  of  assistance 
arrangements.  The  extension  of  the  material  scope  to  all  taxes  implies  that  administrative 
authorities do not need to have recourse to different sets of legislation, each with their own 
rules and conditions, depending on the type of claim for which they are requesting recovery 
assistance.  Moreover,  all  authorities  can  use  the  common  electronic  request  forms  and 
uniform  instruments  (uniform  notification  form  and  uniform  instrument  permitting 
enforcement in the requested Member State). 

The  use  of  common  rules  and  common  forms  –  with  an  automated  translation  – 
considerably facilitates the work of  the authorities dealing with  international tax recovery 
assistance.  This  constitutes  a  major  advantage  for  the  cooperation  between  the  Member 
States' tax authorities. 

The  Commission  services  are  currently  building  a  central  application  aimed  at 
encompassing  all  electronic  forms  for  all  taxation  domains.  This  central  application  will 
allow  further  streamlining  and  rationalisation  of  electronic  forms,  ensuring  quick 
modification  at  Commission  level,  tackling  new  challenges  in  the  field  of  exchange  of 
information,  while  reducing  drastically  the  deployment  costs  at  EU  and  Member  States 
levels. This development will allow to simplify the lay-out of the e-forms and to make them 
still more user-friendly. All Member States have been consulted on the development of the 
central platform design for the recovery request forms.59 

b.  Several  Member  States  also  expressed  the  wish  to  have  the  possibility  to  use  these  EU 
electronic request forms for their bilateral tax recovery assistance with other third countries 
(see point 6.3.2.2.). 

57   See  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council,  the  European  Parliament  and  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  of 19.12.2006 on  Exit taxation  and  the  need  for  co-ordination of Member 
States' tax policies (COM(2006) 825 final). 

58   Directive 2016/1164 of 12 July 2016 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the 

functioning of the internal market, OJ L 193/1 of 19.7.2016. 

59   A Fiscalis 2020 workshop has been organised on 23-24 June 2016 and a specific Fiscalis 2020 project group 
(071) has been set up to prepare the work to make the electronic tax recovery assistance forms still more user-
friendly. 

58 

 
 
 
                                                            
c.  On  the  basis  of  a  Council  mandate,  the  Commission  has  negotiated  an  agreement  on 
administrative cooperation in the field of VAT, including recovery assistance, between the 
EU and Norway. The intention with regard to the recovery assistance aspects is to agree on 
a recovery assistance framework that is as closely as possible to the EU acquis.  

It  is  obvious  that  this  joint  EU  negotiation  approach  has  clear  advantages  over  bilateral 
negotiations between individual  States. The use of common rules, common request forms 
and  a  common  communication  network,  in  line  with  the  rules  of  the  EU  Directive,  will 
ensure  that  this  extended  assistance  can  be  easily  applied  by  the  competent  authorities  of 
the Member States. 

d.  Finally, some respondents in the public consultation solicited a strict approach towards non-

cooperating countries. 

6.4.2.3. Coherence of the EU approach 

a.  Since  recovery  assistance  for  taxes  is  part  of  a  more  global  cooperation  between  the  EU 
Member  States  and  it  is  designed  entirely  to  provide  a  harmonised  set  of  assistance 
arrangements  for  the  cross-border  cases,  it  is  difficult  semantically  to  treat  coherence  in 
separation of the EU added value, without being repetitive. The recovery Directive works 
precisely  because  it  sits  firmly  in  the  web  of  the  arrangements  of  the  administrative 
cooperation between the tax authorities. It is even difficult to imagine it not being coherent 
with the EU policies. This can be illustrated by the following recent examples: 

-   on  21  December  2016,  the  Commission  has  adopted  a  package  of  measures  to 
strengthen  the  EU's  capacity  to  fight  the  financing  of  terrorism  and  organised  crime. 
One of the elements of this package is a Commission proposal for a Regulation of the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  mutual  recognition  of  freezing  and 
confiscation  orders  (document  COM(2016)  819  final).  According  to  the  Commission 
proposal,  the  rules  for  disposal  of  the  confiscated  property  should  give  priority  to  the 
compensation  and  restitution  of  property  to  the  victims.  At  the  same  time,  this 
Commission  proposal  emphasizes  that  when  disposing  of  the  confiscated  property, 
Member States should also take into account their obligations to assist in the recovery 
of tax claims from other  Member States  in  accordance  with Directive 2010/24/EU. In 
the  Recovery  Expert  Group,  some  Member  States  have  indicated  that  they  have  a 
positive experience with regard to this cooperation; 

-   on 13 December 2016 the Commission has presented a proposal for a Regulation of the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  to  amend  Regulation  883/2004  on  the 
coordination  of  social  security  systems  and  the  implementing  Regulation  987/2009 
(document  COM(2016)  815  final).  If  adopted,  this  new  legislation  would  align  the 
recovery  assistance  provisions  for  social  security  claims  to  the  current  rules  for  tax 
recovery assistance. 

c.  Tax recovery assistance benefits from other recent improvements of information exchange 

between tax authorities. This can be illustrated by the following recent examples: 

- 

article  8(1)  of  Directive  2011/16/EU  on  administrative  cooperation  in  the  field  of 
taxation provides that the competent authorities of all Member States have to exchange 
automatically  the  following  information  concerning  residents  in  other  Member  States, 
as from 1 January 2014: 

59 

 
 
 
 
(a) income from employment;  

(b) director’s fees;  

(c) life insurance products not covered by other Union legal instruments on exchange of 

information and other similar measures;  

(d) pensions;  

(e) ownership of and income from immovable property; 

-  moreover,  Council  Directive  2014/107/EU  of  9  December  2014,  amending  Directive 
2011/16/EU, introduced a system of automatic exchange of information about financial 
accounts in other Member States. This new measure applies from 1 January 2016. 

Article  16(1),  first  and  second  subparagraph  of  Directive  2011/16  explicitly  allows  that 
information  communication  pursuant  to  that  Directive  "(…)  may  be  used  for  the 
administration and enforcement of the domestic laws of the Member States concerning the 
taxes  referred  to  in  Article  2.  Such  information  may  also  be  used  for  the  assessment  and 
enforcement  of  other  taxes  and  duties  covered  by  Article  2  of  Council  Directive 
2010/24/EU  of  16  March  2010  concerning  mutual  assistance  for  the  recovery  of  claims 
relating  to taxes, duties and other  measures".  Such information may indeed  be  useful for 
tax  recovery  purposes.  The  effective  and  efficient  use  of  course  depends  on  a  good 
communication  between  the  tax  authorities  receiving  this  information  and  the  tax 
authorities dealing with recovery of tax claims. 

7. CONCLUSIONS 

1.  Council  Directive  2010/24/EU  intended  "to  make  assistance  more  efficient  and  effective 
and to facilitate it in practice".60 The Member States almost unanimously confirm that this 
goal has been achieved. All Member States but one confirm that Directive 2010/24/EU has 
made it easier for them to provide and to receive mutual recovery assistance, compared to 
the  situation  which  existed  under  the  previous  legal  framework.  The  use  of  common 
assistance arrangements is a major advantage of the EU recovery assistance framework, as 
it facilitates the work of the tax authorities concerned. 

2.  The  use  of  the  electronic  request  forms  and  the  uniform  instruments,  with  an  automatic 
translation, have improved the efficiency and effectiveness of recovery assistance. Almost 
all  Member  States  confirm  that  the use  of  uniform  instruments  permitting  enforcement  in 
the  requested  Member  States  (UIPE)  facilitates  the  preparation  of  requests  for  assistance 
and  makes  processing  of  assistance  requests  from  other  Member  States  easier.  The  main 
advantages of the UIPE are the lack of translation costs, the avoidance of recognition issues 
and the electronic transmission. Most Member States also have a positive opinion about the 
use  of  the  uniform  notification  forms  (UNF)  which  accompany  the  documents  for  which 
notification  assistance  is  requested.  The  few  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  also 
appreciated  the  introduction  of  these  uniform  instruments,  which  provide  useful 
information to the debtors.  

60   Preamble of Council Directive 2010/24/EU, point 4. 

60 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
3.  The extension of the scope of the Directive did not substantially influence the types of taxes 
for which recovery assistance is requested. Most claims still relate to direct taxes and VAT. 
However, the extension of the scope is considered to be useful.  

4.  A large majority of Member States is of the opinion that the cooperation under the present 
Directive  has  improved  the  collection  and  recovery  of  their  claims.  The  statistical 
information, although not entirely reliable, also indicates that the amounts recovered on the 
basis  of  the  EU  legislation  have  increased  again,  after  an  initial  regression  in  2012.  The 
amounts recovered in 2013-2014 are in line with the amounts recovered in 2009-2010. The 
amounts further increased in 2015 and 2016. This evolution in the recovered amounts may 
to  some  extent  be  explained  by  the  increasing  number  of  assistance  requests  and  the 
extension  of  the  scope.  However,  it  also  appears  that  the  Directive  has  really  helped  the 
Member  States  to  send  and  deal  with  more  requests,  as  it  facilitated  the  work  for  the 
applicant and requested authorities. 

The above considerations confirm the relevance and the EU added value of this Directive. 

In  situations  where  the  non-collection  is  due  to  the  fraudulent  intention  of  the  debtor, 
recovery assistance however remains difficult. 

5.  In  line  with  the  increased  number  of  requests  for  assistance,  Member  States  also  express 
concerns  about  the  administrative  burden  linked  to  this  assistance.  Reliable  quantitative 
information on this point is however not available. In this regard, it should be noted that the 
Commission services do not have access to individual files (in accordance with Article 23 
of  the  Directive)  and  that  national  tax  authorities  are  reluctant  to  provide  more  detailed 
quantitative statistical information than what is imposed by Article 27(1) of the Directive. 

6.  The deterrent effect of the recovery assistance Directive towards non-compliance cannot be 
measured exactly. However, a considerable number of Member States and also respondents 
to the public consultation believe that general compliance has improved. This may also be 
due  to  the  awareness  of  a  generally  improved  administrative  cooperation  at  international 
level.  The  growing  recovery  assistance  is  indeed  part  of  a  global  evolution  towards  more 
international information exchange and administrative cooperation. The recovery assistance 
Directive is also coherent with other Commission initiatives to strengthen the fight against 
tax fraud and other crime.  

7.  All Member States are making use of the tax recovery assistance framework (although the 
use  and  the  workload  are  not  equal  for  all  Member  States)  and  the  total  number  of 
assistance requests is continuously increasing.  

However, Member States do not (yet) make use of the possibility for tax recovery officials 
of one Member State to go to another Member State and to be present during administrative 
enquiries  –  or  even  to  participate  in  these  enquiries  by  interviewing  individuals  and 
examining  records  –  and  to  assist  officials  of  the  requested  Member  State  during  court 
proceedings in that State.  

8.  Questions or problems with regard to recovery assistance can be usefully discussed in the 
Recovery  Expert  Group  and  in  Fiscalis  2020  activities.  These  platforms  also  provide 
possibilities  to  share  information  about  national  experiences  and  (best)  practices  with 
regard to tax enforcement.  

9.  Member States can ask the Commission services to act as a mediator in case of problems 
concerning mutual assistance with other Member States, in particular cases or in general. It 
is  indeed  important  to  discuss  such  issues,  in  order  to  maintain  the  spirit  of  good 
cooperation between the Member States. 

61 

 
 
10. The success of mutual recovery assistance is influenced by the strength or weakness of the 
internal tax recovery system within the requested Member States. The existence of the EU 
framework  for  recovery  assistance  does  not  take  away  the  limitations  and  loopholes  of 
internal  tax  recovery  resources  and  procedures  within  the  Member  States,  which  may  be 
exploited  and  abused  by  fraudsters.  On  this  point,  it  appears  that  several  Member  States 
have  to  increase  their  efforts  to  provide  sufficient  legal,  human  and  technical  means  to 
improve  the  effectiveness  of  their  internal  tax  recovery  system.  This  is  needed  to  help 
safeguard the single market, in the interest of all Member States. 

In  the  view  of  the  Commission  services,  reinforcing  the  Member  States'  capacity  to  take 
effective and efficient recovery and precautionary measures is a top priority. 

  At  the  same  time,  Member  States  should  ensure  that  the  rights  of  the  tax  payers  and  tax 

debtors are well respected. 

11. Although  the  current  EU  legislation  offers  a  very  advanced  framework  for  tax  recovery 
assistance,  several  suggestions  have  been  made  to  further  develop  recovery  assistance 
within the EU. These suggestions will be the subject of further reflections. However, at this 
stage, the Commission services consider that the focus should first be on improving internal 
tax recovery within the Member States, in  order to  take full advantage of the potential  of 
the existing EU framework on tax recovery assistance.  

12. The problem of missing debtors and assets is not only an intra-EU problem. Debtors also 
move  to  third  countries  and  assets  are  spread  worldwide,  hindering  the  recovery  of  taxes 
within the EU. 

13. In  line  with  the  requests  from  Member  States  and  from  respondents  to  the  public 
consultation, the Commission services will also analyse if and how more explanation and 
training can be organised.  

62