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: 2020-12-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, EU statistics, European tax cooperation, bank deposit, claim, data collection, exchange of information, tax authorities, tax collection, tax offence

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 18.12.2020  SWD(2020) 340 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(2020) 813 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

Background 

1.   First action point: improving the (automated) collection of statistical data 

1.1.   Increasing volume of the assistance requests 

1.2.   Move to an automated collection of statistical data 

1.3.  Collection of more statistical data 

2.  Second action point: improving the legislation and practice at national level  

2.1.  Cases of no-reply, unclear replies and late replies 

2.1.1.   General comments 

2.1.2.   Need to provide sufficient human resources 

2.1.3.   Need to provide sufficient IT-resources 

2.2.   Incorrect  implementation  of  Directive  2010/24  and  other  inadequacies  of  national 

rules and practice 

2.2.1.   Access to (bank) information 

2.2.2.  National rules or practice not permitting the same treatment as for national 

claims 

2.2.3.  Incorrect  implementation  of  the  Directive  2010/24  with  regard  to  “old” 

claims 

2.2.4.  Incorrect  implementation  of  the  Directive  2010/24  with  regard  to  small 

claims 

2.2.5.  Other situations where the national legislation or practice is not fit to grant 

recovery assistance 

3.  Fourth  action  point:  Developing  the  knowledge  and  awareness  of  the  mutual 

recovery assistance legislation  

3.1.   Training and guidance for national tax authorities in the field of recovery assistance 

3.1.1.   Training for new officials 
3.1.2.   Specialised workshops / working groups 

3.1.3.   National information on CIRCABC 

3.2.   Raising general awareness about tax recovery assistance 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Background 

1.  The  Commission  Report  COM(2017)778  on  tax  recovery  assistance  presented  the 

following conclusions: 
-  The  EU  legislation  and  framework  for  tax  recovery  assistance  has  facilitated  tax 

- 

- 

recovery assistance between the EU Member States.  
In order to guarantee the efficiency and effectiveness of mutual recovery assistance, 
Member  States  should  strengthen  their  internal  tax  recovery  systems  and  deploy 
sufficient resources to deal with recovery assistance requests.  
In  this  regard,  it  should  be  examined  if  and  how  detailed  and  precise  quantitative 
information can be collected about the administrative burden and costs and about the 
correspondence  between  the  workload  of  incoming  requests  for  assistance  and  the 
administrative resources deployed in the requested State.  
Improving  different  (legal  and  technical)  aspects  of  the  functioning  of  the  system 
may  still  be  considered  with  the  Member  States  and  other  stakeholders,  including 
taxpayers.  

-  More  communication  to  explain  and  promote  this  legislation  would  contribute  to 

increase tax compliance and respect of taxpayers' rights.  

-  Recovery of taxes is and remains difficult in case of organised tax fraud by natural or 

legal persons:  

o  natural  persons  committing  fraud  or  setting  up  fraudulent  tax  structures  go 

missing and dislocate their assets;  
legal persons organise their insolvency and also move their assets.  

o 

-  As  a  consequence  of  the  international  development  of  exchange  of  information, 
recovery  assistance  between  the  EU  and  third  countries  will  become  a  more 
prominent issue. 

2.  The above report led to the adoption of the following action points: 

1) 

Improving the collection of statistical data on the use of tax recovery assistance, in 
view  of  a  more  detailed  evaluation  of  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  mutual 
recovery assistance, in order to avoid or limit additional workload for the national tax 
authorities;  

2)   Examining  problems  at  the  level  of  individual  Member  States  that  hamper  the 

smooth functioning of mutual recovery assistance; 

3)  Examining  needs  and  ways  to  improve  the  functioning  of  the  recovery  assistance 

system at EU level; 

4)  Developing  the  knowledge  and  awareness  of  the  mutual  recovery  assistance 

legislation, both by national tax authorities and taxpayers; 

5)  Examining possibilities and ways to promote and facilitate recovery assistance with 

third countries, taking account of the EU’s competence and priorities. 

3.  The  follow-up  on  the  above  action  points  is  described  in  the  Commission  report 
COM(2020)  813  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council.  This  Commission  staff 
working  document,  accompanying  the  Commission  report  to  the  European  Parliament 
and the Council, presents a more detailed analysis of action points 1, 2 and 4. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1.   First action point: improving the (automated) collection of statistical data 

1.1. Increasing volume of the assistance requests 

4.  The yearly statistical data that each Member State has to report1 relate to:  

-   the  number  of  requests  for  information,  notification,  recovery  or  precautionary 
measures  sent  to  each  requested  Member  State  and  received  from  each  applicant 
Member State over the year; 

-   the amount of the claims for which recovery assistance is requested and the amounts 

recovered. 

5.  The use of all traditional types of recovery assistance (requests for information, requests 
for  notification,  requests  for  precautionary  and/or  recovery  measures)  continued  to 
increase in the period 2017-2019: 2 

Table 1: total numbers of requests received by all Member States in 2017-2019:  

Requests for 
information 

Requests for 
notification 

2017 
2018 
2019 

14 104 
17 054 
20 271 

1 919 
1 945 
2 141 

Requests for 
precautionary 
measures 
97 
94 
154 

Requests for 
recovery 

16 583 
19 326 
21 308 

TOTAL 
number of 
requests 
32 703 
38 419 
43 874 

The above data indicates that during the three-year period, almost 115 000 requests were 
received. On average, the total number of requests grew 15 % every year.  

6. 

If 2013 is taken as the baseline – 2013 being the first year when Directive 2010/24 was 
fully  implemented  in  all  Member  States  –  then  the  increase  is  even  more  impressive, 
especially for the requests for information and the requests for recovery: 

Table  2a:  evolution  of  the  total  numbers  of  requests  received  by  all  Member  States  in 
2017-2019, in % compared to 2013 (2013 = 100 %): 

Requests for 
information 

Requests for 
notification 

2017 
2018 
2019 

171 % 
207 % 
246 % 

93 % 
94 % 
104 % 

Requests for 
precautionary 
measures 

95 % 
92 % 
151 % 

Requests for 
recovery 

160 % 
186 % 
205 % 

1  
2  

In accordance with Article 27(1) of Directive 2010/24. 
Statistics  about  recovery  assistance  in  previous  years  were  presented  in  Commission  report  COM 
(2017)778 of 18 December 2017. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 2b: evolution of the total number of requests in the period 2013-2019: 

Table  2c:  evolution  of  the  total  number  of  requests  in  the  period  2013-2019  (in  %, 
compared to 2013 = 100 %)3 

7.  The amounts  for which  recovery assistance was  requested decreased in  2017 and 2018, 

but this was followed by a high increase in 2019:  

3    The year 2013 is taken as the baseline. This was the first year of full application of Directive 2010/24 in all 

Member States. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
Table 3: global evolution of the amounts for which recovery assistance was requested in 
the period 2013-2019 (in %, compared to 2013 = 100 %; based on the average of the sent 
and received requests): 

8.  The amounts recovered in 2017-2019 are anyhow considerably higher than the amounts 

recovered in previous years. 

Table 4a: global evolution of the amounts recovered in the period 2013-2019 (based on 
the average of the amounts reported by the applicant and requested authorities) 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4b: global evolution of the amounts recovered in the period 2013-2019 (based on 
the average of  the amounts  reported by the applicant and requested authorities)  (in  %, 
compared to 2013 = 100 %) 

1.2. Move to an automated collection of statistical data 

9.  The  transition  to  the  central  application  for  the  electronic  request  forms  (eFCA)  will 
make it possible to  automatically collect  the statistical  data that Member States  have to 
report.  

It  is  expected  that  the  move  to  an  automated  collection  of  statistical  data  will  not  only 
reduce  the  administrative  burden  for  the  Member  States  but  also  help  to  improve  the 
quality of these statistics. In the past, the correspondence between the statistics reported 
by applicant and requested Member States was not always guaranteed and the differences 
seemed to exceed the divergences that can be explained by other causes (e.g. differences 
in the number of requests that are caused by requests sent at the end of a calendar  year 
and  opened  in  the  following  year;  differences  in  the  amounts  reported  that  are  due  to 
currency exchange or other bank costs).  

In this regard, the collection of statistics on the  use of  recovery  assistance between EU 
Member  States  and  Norway  in  2019  –  on  the  basis  of  the  EU-Norway  agreement  on 
administrative  cooperation  and  recovery  assistance  in  the  field  of  VAT,  concluded  in 
2018  –  clearly  illustrates  the  possible  extent  of  differences  in  the  statistics  that  are 
counted  manually.  Although  the  number  of  recovery  assistance  requests  under  this 
agreement in the first  year of its use was still low, the statistics initially reported by the 
countries concerned showed considerable discrepancies. In 8 of the 16 reports on requests 
sent  by  Norway  to  EU  Member  States,  the  statistics  initially  reported  by  the  Member 
States differed from the statistics reported by Norway; in 2 of the 7 reports on requests 
sent  by  EU  Member  States  to  Norway,  the  statistics  initially  reported  by  the  Member 
States differed from the statistics reported by Norway. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10.  The automation process should also allow to avoid the late communication of statistics by 

some Member States.4 

Table 5: Timing of the reporting of statistical data with regard to recovery assistance in 
the period 2017-2019: 
Member State 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Czechia 
Denmark 
Germany 
Ireland 
Estonia 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Croatia 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxemburg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 

2017 
30.03.2018 
13.03.2018 
05.03.2018 
23.03.2018 
26.03.2018 
14.03.2018 
01.03.2018 
30.03.2018 
22.03.2018 
13.04.2018 
19.03.2018 
04.04.2018 
30.03.2018 
29.03.2018 
29.03.2018 
24.04.2018 
29.03.2018 
14.03.2018 
29.03.2018 
13.03.2018 
07.03.2018 
28.03.2018 
30.03.2018 
22.03.2018 
12.04.2018 
26.03.2018 
21.02.2018 
09.03.2018 

2018 
01.04.2019 
26.03.2019 
04.03.2019 
05.04.2019 
20.03.2019 
12.04.2019 
27.05.2019 
29.03.2019 
28.03.2019 
24.04.2019 
28.03.2019 
27.03.2019 
29.03.2019 
28.03.2019 
26.03.2019 
02.05.2019 
26.03.2019 
06.03.2019 
30.06.2019 
26.03.2019 
12.02.2019 
28.03.2019 
28.03.2019 
01.04.2019 
15.05.2019 
09.04.2019 
26.03.2019 
15.03.2019 

2019 
30.03.2020 
19.03.2020 
26.02.2020 
31.03.2020 
26.03.2020 
17.02.2020 
18.03.2020 
06.05.2020 
01.04.2020 
26.05.2020 
18.03.2020 
08.04.2020 
31.03.2020 
01.04.2020 
30.03.2020 
27.04.2020 
23.03.2020 
30.03.2020 
24.02.2020 
18.03.2020 
12.02.2020 
30.03.2020 
01.04.2020 
20.03.2020 
11.03.2020 
31.03.2020 
30.03.2020 
17.04.2020 

11.  Member States may also provide any other information that may be useful for evaluating 
the  provision  of  mutual  assistance  under  the  Recovery  Directive.5  Almost  all  Member 
States (26 out of 27) provide statistics about the nature of the claims for which recovery 
assistance  is  requested.  The  development  of  the  central  application  will  also  make  it 
possible to automatically collect this information. 

4  
5  

The statistics must be communicated by 31 March of the following year (Art. 27(1) of Directive 2010/24). 
In accordance with Article 27(2) of Directive 2010/24. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
1.3. Collection of more statistical data 

12.  In  the  past,  Member  States  in  the  Recovery  Expert  Group  already  agreed  to  provide 
statistics on the use of exchange of information without prior request6 and on the number 
of visits of tax recovery officials to other Member States.7  

An  automated  collection  of  these  statistics  is  not  possible  in  the  current  system.  In  the 
Commission’s view, there is no urgent need for automation here: 
-  at present, the possibilities for exchange of information without prior request – which 
Article 6 now limits to information about upcoming refunds of taxes or duties, other 
than VAT – are only used by a few Member States; 

-  the use of the possibilities for official visits to other Member States is very limited.8  

2.  Second action point: Improving the rules and practice at national level  

13.  Following  the  adoption  of  Commission  report  COM2017(778),  all  Member  States  have 
been  invited  to  report  about  specific  problems  experienced  in  their  relations  with  other 
Member States. The problems reported can be categorized as follows: 
- 

situations  of  no-reply  and  other  situations  where  the  cooperation  was  considered 
problematic, due to insufficient or unclear information and communication problems 
(section 2.1.); 
incorrect implementation of Directive 2010/24 on tax recovery assistance and other 
situations where the national legislation or administrative practice are insufficient to 
provide effective recovery assistance (section 2.2.). 

- 

6   Article 6 of Directive 2010/24. 
7   Article 7 of Directive 2010/24: presence in the offices where the administrative authorities of the requested 
Member State carry out their duties; presence during administrative enquiries carried out in the territory of 
the  requested  Member  State;  assistance  to  the  competent  officials  of  the  requested  Member  State  during 
court proceedings in that Member State. 
In the period 2012-2019, the possibilities of Art. 7 of Directive 2010/24 were only used two times. 

8  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.1. Cases of no-reply, unclear replies and late replies 

2.1.1. General comments 

14.  Some requests for recovery assistance remained  unanswered, despite several  reminders. 
The information provided by  the Member States shows that the situation is  particularly 
worrying in two Member States, where a large number of requests remained unanswered 
in recent years. The situation also needs to be improved in two other Member States.  

Member States also reported several cases where unclear replies were given and where it 
was  experienced  that  the  requested  authorities  did  not  provide  (sufficient)  clarification 
with regard to the follow-up given to requests for assistance. 

15.  Late  replies  were  also  reported  as  a  problem,  in  particular  with  regard  to  requests  for 
information. In principle, information should be transmitted “as and when it is obtained”, 
“within  a  reasonable  time”  and  “in  any  event,  at  the  end  of  6  months  from  the  date  of 
acknowledgement of receipt of the request”.9 The maximum time period of 6 months was 
copied  from  the  former  implementing  legislation,  starting  with  the  implementing 
legislation adopted in 1977.10 One could expect that requested authorities no longer need 
so  much  time  –  half  a  calendar  year  –  to  collect  and  transmit  information,  given  the 
development of immediately accessible databases and modern communication means. As 
suggested  by  a  Member  State,  an  agreement  to  reduce  this  time  period  considerably11 
would give an important signal to all Member States that the assistance must be speeded 
up in order to improve the efficiency of the system. 

16.  In  this  regard,  the  suggestion  to  streamline  the  execution  of  assistance  requests  in  the 
requested  Member  State  (by  the  use  of  a  single  legal  framework  for  the  execution  of 
requests,  irrespective  of  the  type  of  claims  concerned)  would  facilitate  the  work  of  the 
requested authorities. 

17.  Good  cooperation  also  requires  a  clear  and  precise  communication  from  the  applicant 
authorities. Their initial request should already provide all information that is useful for 
the requested authorities. 

A  striking  example  in  this  regard:  a  Member  State  complained  that  the  requested 
authorities of another Member State replied to a recovery request, by asking for precise 
information about the notification of the claim(s) concerned, „while they never asked for 
that before”. In view of the Donnellan judgement12, it is rather surprising to see that the 
applicant  authorities  did  not  provide  such  information  in  their  initial  request  for 
assistance. 

9   Art. 8(1) and (2) of implementing Regulation 1189/2011. 
10   Article 6 of implementing Regulation 1179/2008 ; Article 6 of implementing Directive 2002/94 and Article 

5 of implementing Directive 77/794. 

11   The Commission would suggest to reduce this time period to one month. 
12   EUCJ case C-34/17 Donnellan. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
18.  Recommendations to applicant and requested Member States: 

  Member  States  should  apply  a  shorter  period  for  the  execution  of  requests  for 

information.  

  Member States should ensure and control that requests for assistance are effectively 

and timely executed. 

  When requesting recovery assistance, the applicant Member State should provide the 
requested Member State with all information relevant to recovery that it possesses (in 
particular on the identification of the debtor). The applicant Member State should be 
accurate with respect to the information mentioned in the forms (e.g accurate date of 
notification of all the claims by the applicant Member State). 

  When a request for recovery cannot be executed for reasons relating to the national 
law of the requested Member State, the requested authority should not reply with  a  
general  reference  to  its  national  law,  but  provide  a  clear  and  accurate  explanation, 
possibly including the exact reference of the national provision(s) at stake. 

  When  informing  about  the  execution  of  the  request,  the  requested  Member  State 
should provide clear descriptions of the measures taken, of the current status of the 
case  and  of  any  problematic  issues  encountered.  If  it  is  difficult  or  impossible  to 
execute  a  request  for  recovery  or  when  the  requested  authority  needs  additional 
information, it should indicate this in a clear and precise way.  

  Tax  authorities  request  that  the  communication  between  Member  States  is  done  in 

English, unless another language is agreed by the Member States concerned.  

2.1.2. Need to provide sufficient human resources 

19.  Given  the  continuous  increase  in  the  volume  of  assistance  requests,  it  is  important  that 
Member  States  allocate  sufficient  human  resources  to  deal  with  these  requests.  In  its 
report  of  2017,  the  Commission  suggested  to  examine  if  and  how  detailed  and  precise 
quantitative information can be collected about the administrative burden and costs, and 
about the correspondence between the workload of incoming requests for assistance and 
the administrative resources deployed in the requested State.13 

20.  At  its  meeting  on  26-27  February  2020,  the  Recovery  Expert  Group  discussed  a 
suggestion  of  Fiscalis  Project  Group  110  to  collect  statistics  on  the  number  of  staff 
involved  in  tax  recovery  assistance  at  the  level  of  the  national  Central  Liaison  Offices 
(CLOs) in each Member State, as data on the evolution of staff in relation to the evolution 
of requests, possibly also in comparison with other Member States’ administrations, may 
help to evaluate staff needs. Two delegations were sceptical, arguing that such data had to 
be fed in manually and thus constituted a burden; that organisational structure varied; and 
that it could be difficult to quantify possible support from other departments. 

21.  Recommendation:  

  Member  States  should  allocate  sufficient  human  resources  for  handling  the  ever 
increasing  number  of  assistance  requests.  In  this  regard,  sharing  information  about 
the number of people involved in tax recovery assistance at the level of the national 
CLOs may be useful for the assessment of the own staff needs.  

13   Point 5.b. of the conclusions of Commission report COM(2017)778. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.1.3. Need to provide sufficient IT-resources 

22.  In 2019, a central platform for the electronic request forms was launched, together with a 
new  release  of  these  forms.  This  new  platform  –  which  also  applies  to  other  areas  of 
administrative cooperation – has some important advantages, e.g. new versions of these 
forms  no  longer  need  to  be  deployed  at  national  level  in  each  Member  State,  and  the 
central platform supports an automated collection of statistical data. 

Following this  change, several  Member States  reported problems about  the slowness  of 
the new application, in particular when the forms were used for multiple-claim requests. 
The  analysis  by  the  Commission  services  led  to  the  conclusion  that  the  behaviour 
reported  was  due  to  elements  on  the  client  side  (browser  used,  network  connection, 
workstation).    At  the  Recovery  Expert  Group  meeting  on  26-27  February  2020,  the 
Commission  invited  the Member  States  that  reported  persisting  problems  to  provide  all 
required information to the IT-helpdesk, in view of technical meetings with the relevant 
IT-staff in the administrations affected.  

Following  this  meeting,  no  request  was  received  by  the  Commission’s  IT-helpdesk, 
which seems  to indicate a lack of communication between the  authorities using  the  IT-
infrastructure and the IT-offices in the Member States concerned. 

On the one hand, Member States’ tax authorities demand for advanced electronic forms 
(with an automated translation and a lot of “intelligent” functions built in); on the other 
hand several tax authorities are facing internal  capacity limitations and restrictions with 
regard to browsers and workstations; operating systems, CPU, memory, etc.).  

23.  Recommendation:  

  Member  States  should  ensure  that  the  IT-equipment  at  the  disposal  of  the  tax 
authorities  dealing  with  recover  requests  is  sufficient  and  appropriate,  in  order  to 
avoid  performance  problems  when  using  the  electronic  forms  for  tax  recovery 
assistance. 

2.2.  Incorrect implementation of Directive 2010/24 and other insufficiencies of national 

rules and practice 

24.  Several  Member  States  reported  problems  that  raise  questions  about  the  correct 
implementation  of  the  Directive  on  tax  recovery  assistance  in  the  requested  Member 
State. 

Other issues reported relate to situations where the recovery legislation or practice in the 
requested Member State is not optimal or not fit to provide recovery assistance to other 
Member  States.  This  prevents  the  requested  authorities  from  treating  a  claim  for  which 
assistance is requested “as if it was a claim of the requested Member State” (as required 
by Article 13(1) of Directive 2010/24). 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
25.  The Commission has asked the Member States concerned to clarify these situations, as it 
is not always clear whether the problematic replies were based on a misunderstanding of 
the  EU  rules  in  individual  cases  or  whether  they  are  symptomatic  of  fundamental  and 
general problems of incorrect or insufficient implementation of the EU provisions.  

26.  This  evaluation  is  ongoing.  At  this  stage,  the  following  categories  of  fundamentaal 

problems have been identified: 

- 
- 

- 

- 

access to (bank) information (section 2.2.1.); 
situations  where  the  law  or  practice  of  the  requested  Member  State  does  not 
permit the same treatment to claims for which recovery assistance is requested as 
for national claims (section 2.2.2.); 
incorrect implementation of Directive 2010/24 with regard to old claims (section 
2.2.3.); 
incorrect  implementation  of  Directive  2010/24  with  regard  to  small  claims 
(section 2.2.4.); 

-  other insufficiencies of the national recovery rules or practice (section 2.2.5.). 

2.2.1. Access to (bank) information 

27.  At  the  request  of  the  applicant  authority,  the  requested  authority  has  to  provide  any 
information which is foreseeably relevant to the applicant authority in the recovery of its 
claims (Article 5(1) of Directive 2010/24). A requested authority is, however, not obliged 
to provide information which it would not be able to obtain for the purpose of recovering 
similar claims arising in the requested Member State (Art. 5(2)(a) of Directive 2010/24). 

The  implementation  of  this  provision  appears  to  be  problematic  in  several  Member 
States, as reported at the Fiscalis workshop in Vienna (FWS 130) in October 2019.  

28.  In two Member States, the recovery of tax claims is attributed to a separate Enforcement 
Authority, who has direct access to information about bank accounts or other assets. As 
the  tax  authorities  of  these  Member  States  do  not  have  this  access  to  bank  information 
without  referring  to  their  Enforcement  Authority,  they  prefer  to  receive  immediately  a 
request  for  recovery  instead  of  a  request  for  information  (unless  the  request  for 
information only relates to the address of the person concerned).  

In the view of the Commission, the approach adopted by these Member States is not in 
line  with  Article  5  of  the  Directive.  Moreover,  it  is  more  burdensome  for  the  applicant 
authorities to send a request for recovery than a request for information, as the form for a 
recovery request contains many more mandatory fields14 to be filled out. 

29.  A  similar  problem  was  reported  with  regard  to  another  Member  State.  At  the  Fiscalis 
workshop  in  Vienna  (FWS  130)  in  September  2018,  it  was  explained  that  the  tax 
authorities of this Member State do not have access to bank accounts and cannot obtain 
any other asset information from third parties without a Court order, which can only be 
obtained when executing an actual request for recovery. 

14   The recovery request form also includes a large number of data fields for the uniform instrument permitting 

enforcement in the requested Member State. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
30.  Problems concerning access to bank account information were also reported with regard 
to other Member States. It was reported that tax recovery authorities  cannot have/request 
access to bank account information if they do not receive the exact bank account number 
or at least the name of the bank.  

It  was  also  observed  that  many  requested  authorities  cannot  provide  information 
regarding the transfers that have been ordered from a bank account.  

31.  Several  reports  also  mentioned  cases  relating  to  different  Member  States  receiving 
requests  for  recovery,  sent  by  other  Member  States  on  the  basis  of  the  bank  account 
information  that  was  previously  exchanged  under  Directive  2011/16,  and  where  the 
requested  recovery  authorities  replied  that  they  were  unable  to  identify  the  person 
concerned  or  to  retrieve  the  bank  account  concerned.  This  indicates  that  the  recovery 
authorities  in  the  Member  States  concerned  do  not  have  sufficient  communication  with 
other tax authorities. 

32.  The Commission concludes that all Member States should remove national  obstacles to 
give full effect to Article 5 of Directive 2010/24, concerning the exchange of information 
relating to bank accounts.  

The same should also be done with regard to the access to other information that may be 
relevant for tax recovery purposes. 

33.  Recommendations:  

  When replying to an assistance request, the requested Member State should indicate 
why specific information is not available or why it cannot be provided. This would 
help  the  applicant  Member  State  to  adapt  future  requests  for  information  to  that 
particular requested Member State. At the same time, Member States should ensure 
that their recovery authorities have access to all information that may be relevant for 
recovery of tax claims of the other Member States. 

  At the meeting of the Recovery Expert Group on 26-27 February 2020, it was agreed 
to set up a detailed overview of the standard information (databases, etc.) available to 
the  tax  authorities  of  each  Member  State  and  of  the  inquiries,  checks  and  other 
actions  usually  carried  out  when  a  request  for  information  is  received.  This  would 
make clear from the start which information can be provided and could help to avoid 
repeated requests for information that is unavailable. All Member States are invited 
to provide a complete, clear and detailed report and to keep it updated. 

2.2.2.  National rules or practice not permitting the same treatment as for national 

claims 

34.  Some  cases  were  reported  about  situations  where  the  recovery  rules  or  practice  in  the 
requested Member State was not optimal or not fit to provide recovery assistance to other 
Member States. Such situations affect the requested Member State’s capacity to treat the 
claims  of  other  Member  States  as  if  they  were  claims  of  the  requested  Member  State, 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
even  though  this  “same  treatment”  is  fundamental  for  the  execution  of  the  recovery 
requests.15 

Examples: 
- 

In a particular case, the authorities of a Member State replied that they could not 
execute  a  request  for  recovery,  since  the  debtor  did  not  dispose  of  a  Personal 
Identification Number in that country. 

-  One requested authority replied in several cases that it was not possible to seize a 
bank  account  in  that  country  if  the  person  concerned  was  not  resident  in  that 
country. In another case, the requested authority of the same country replied that it 
was highly unlikely that it would get a court judgment to seize a bank account for 
foreign tax claims. 

35.  The  countries  concerned  have  been  requested  to  clarify  these  issues  and,  if  needed,  to 
change  their  national  legislation  or  administrative  practice.  The  further  evaluation  is 
ongoing. 

2.2.3. Incorrect implementation of the Directive 2010/24 with regard to “old” claims 

36.  The  Directive  provides  that  “the  requested  authority  shall  not  be  obliged”  to  grant 
recovery assistance for older claims (as specified in Article 18(2) of Directive 2010/24). 
The purpose of this rule is to encourage and allow Member States to focus on more recent 
claims, which usually imply a better recovery chance. 

37.  Although the requested authority “shall not be obliged” to execute a request sent after the 
time period specified in Article 18(2) of the Directive, this provision does not prevent the 
requested  authority  from  executing  this  request.  There  may  indeed  be  good  reasons  for 
requesting  –  and  granting  –  recovery  assistance  for  older  claims.  It  is  for  the  requested 
authority to decide whether it accepts a request with regard to an old claim, having regard 
to  the  circumstances  of  a  specific  case,  possibly  taking  account  of  particular  evidence, 
reasons or expectations communicated by the applicant authority. 

38.  On  this  point,  it  appears  that  some  Member  States  have  incorrectly  implemented  this 

provision of the Directive.  

In several Member States, the national law does not confer a discretionary power on their 
tax authorities to decide on their own whether they refuse requests for such old claims or 
whether  they  still  grant  assistance,  possibly  taking  account  of  the  special  justification 
provided  by  the  applicant  authority  when  submitting  its  request  for  assistance  after  the 
normal time period.16 

Any attempt by Member States to circumvent such incorrect national implementation of 
the Directive by granting recovery assistance on the basis of another legal instrument (a 
bilateral or multilateral agreement) would be conflicting with the priority of EU law and 

15  
16  

In accordance with Article 13(1) of Directive 2010/24. 
In accordance with the general principles of EU law, this provision of the Directive cannot be invoked by 
tax authorities against a national provision that would not be in line with the Directive. This means that if a 
Member State’s law excludes assistance for requests submitted after the 5 year period, the tax authorities 
concerned cannot rely on the Directive to obtain/grant this assistance. 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
would be to the detriment of the legal protection offered to the debtor under EU law.17 If 
the  requested  authority  refused  to  handle  a  request  for  an  older  claim  under  the  EU 
Directive, while accepting to handle a request with regard to the same claim submitted on 
the basis of another legal instrument, the requested authority would render ineffective the 
EU Directive and the legal protection surrounding this Directive (e.g. application of the 
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; jurisdictional control by the EU Court of Justice). In 
this regard, it should be noted that the EU Court of Justice has explicitly stated that any 
legislative  or  administrative  practice  impairing  the  effectiveness  of  EU  law  is  not 
acceptable.18  

39.  Member States are requested to correctly implement Article 18(2) of Directive 2010/24. 

2.2.4. Incorrect implementation of the Directive 2010/24 with regard to small claims 

40.  Article 18(3) of Directive 2010/24 provides that: “A Member State shall not be obliged to 
grant  assistance  if  the  total  amount  of  the  claims  covered  by  this  Directive,  for  which 
assistance is requested, is less than EUR 1 500.” 

41.  The  implementing  legislation  of  some  Member  States  explicitly  excludes  recovery 
assistance for claims below this threshold. Some other Member States in practice refuse 
to  provide  assistance  for  such  small  claims  under  the  Directive.  As  they  have  no  such 
explicit refusal  in  their  bilateral  conventions,  however, other Member States  sometimes 
send two requests for recovery to these Member States – one based on the Directive and 
one based on a double tax treaty – for the same tax claim when the amount concerned is 
below  EUR  1 500.  This  creates  confusion  and  uncertainty  about  the  validity  of  the 
request and the execution of that request. 
It  is  not  surprising  that  applicant  Member  States  try  to  rely  on  the  Directive,  also  for 
amounts below EUR 1 500: the use of the Directive inter alia enables them to make use 
of the standard request forms and the Uniform Instrument Permitting Enforcement in the 
requested Member State, with an automated translation. This is important in view of the 
language requirements imposed by the EU Court of Justice.19 

The  wording  used  in  the  Directive  does  not  exclude  that  the  requested  Member  State 
provides  assistance  for  lower  amounts,  in  particular  in  cases  where  there  are  no  real 
recovery costs in the requested Member State (e.g. if a VAT (or another tax) refundable 
amount is in the hands of the requested tax authority), or in other justified situations (e.g. 
if a debtor deliberately paid his tax debts in another country, but deducting EUR 1 500 of 
the amount due). 

Unfortunately, it  appears that some Member States have implemented  Article18(3) in  a 
way  that  corresponds  to  the  wording  of  the  former  implementing  legislation  of  the 
Commission,  i.e.  refusing  in  an  inflexible  manner  to  grant  assistance  for  claims  below 
EUR  1 500.  Such  restrictive  national  implementation  ignores  the  fact  that  the  Directive 
intends  to  favour  tax  recovery  assistance,  in  the  same  way  as  under  the  corresponding 
provision of the OECD Model treaty. If such Member States apply their double taxation 

17   Cf.  Commission  staff  working  document  SWD(2017)461  of  18  December  2017  accompanying  the 
Commission  report  COM(2017)778  on  the  use  of  the  EU  framework  for  tax  recovery  assistance,  point 
6.3.1.1.e. 

18   See e.g. EUCJ 19 June 1990, case C-213/89, Factortame, point 20; EUCJ 6 March 2018, case C-284/16, 

Achmea, points 58-59. 

19   See EUCJ 14 January 2010, case C-233/08, Kyrian, and EUCJ 26 April 2018, case C-34/17, Donnellan. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
treaties in such a way that they grant assistance for claims below EUR 1 500, despite the 
treaty provision stating that the requested State does not have to provide assistance if the 
administrative burden for that State would be disproportionate to the benefit of the other 
State, then it is unclear and unjustified that these countries systematically refuse to grant 
assistance  under  the  Directive  to  other  EU  Member  States  for  the  same  amounts.  The 
Commission  services  would  even  expect  the  administrative  burden  for  the  requested 
Member State to be lesser if the EU framework is used, given the possibility to use the 
electronic  communication  framework  and  the  specific  e-forms  and  uniform  instruments 
that reduce the translation problems.   

Member States should not circumvent the Directive by agreeing and applying a different 
legal framework for executing requests for recovery or precautionary measures relating to 
such  smaller  amounts,  which  would  not  offer  the  legal  protection  granted  to  the  tax 
debtor under the Directive.  

42.  The  Member  States  concerned  are  requested  to  amend  their  national  implementation  of 

the Directive 2010/24. This will allow them to avoid the complications described above. 

43.  A good practice example: under the legislation of a Member State, it is possible to waive 
the  1 500  EUR  threshold  if  assistance  can  be  granted  with  only  minor  efforts  by  the 
requested authority (e.g. if the debtor is entitled to a VAT or other tax refund). 

2.2.5.  Other situations where the national legislation or practice is not fit to grant 

recovery assistance 

44.  The  use  of  precautionary  measures  is  important,  in  order  to  guarantee  the  recovery  of 
contested tax claims. However, precautionary measures are not taken or cannot be taken 
in some Member States. The authorities of another Member State also declared that as a 
matter  of  practice,  they  do  not  take  precautionary  measures  as  part  of  the  normal  debt 
recovery process. This affects the capacity to provide useful assistance to other Member 
States. 

Further, the exact purview of the precautionary measures is different from Member State 
to Member State. A general or theoretical possibility to take precautionary measures does 
not necessarily imply that useful assistance can be provided in a specific case.  

Example:   a  Member  State  replied  to  a  particular  assistance  request  that  there  was  no 
legal  basis  in  its  national  law  to  freeze  bank  accounts  during  tax 
investigations. 

The  Commission  intends  to  organise  a  debate  with  the  Member  States  on  minimum 
standards  for  precautionary  measures  in  the  Member  States,  taking  account  of  both  the 
need to step up the efforts in the fight against fraud and the obligation to respect the tax 
debtors’ right of defence. This analysis will have to take account of the future decision of 
the EU Court of Justice in case C-420/19 (Heavyinstall).  

45.  Other  specific  rules  in  national  law  also  hinder  an  effective  and  efficient  tax  recovery 

assistance.  

16 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Example:  a Member State did not execute requests from other Member States to seize the 
amounts  for  which  the  debtor  had  requested  a  VAT  refund,  since  the 
administrative  costs  –  applied  ex  officio  under  the  national  law  of  that 
requested Member State and thus not adapted to this particular situation where 
the  amounts  concerned  could  be  seized  very  easily  by  the  requested  Member 
State – were so high that they would exceed the amounts seized.  

Example:  a Member State did not execute a request to recover claims from a third party 
having  debts  towards  the  tax  debtor,  because  there  was  no  legal  basis  in  the 
requested Member State to recover the debt from third parties holding assets of 
the debtor or having debts towards the debtor.  

46.  The  Member  States  are  invited  to  check  and  improve  their  national  recovery  rules,  in 
order to ensure that the national recovery provisions offer sufficient possibilities for the 
recovery of foreign tax claims or to guarantee their recovery, in order to give full effect to 
the recovery assistance under Directive 2010/24. 

3.  Fourth action point: Developing the knowledge and awareness of the mutual 

recovery assistance legislation  

3.1. Training and guidance for national tax authorities in the field of recovery assistance 

3.1.1. Training for tax recovery officials 

47.  Problems  reported  to  Fiscalis  Project  Group  110  often  result  from  non-respect  or  non-
understanding of the common rules of Directive 2010/24. These issues confirm that tax 
officials dealing with mutual recovery assistance requests have a need for more guidance 
and training with regard to the EU rules and e-forms in this field.  

48.  Therefore, it is planned to organise periodical (e.g. yearly) training events for officials in 
the  field  of  recovery  assistance.  These  training  events  could  be  organised  within  the 
framework of the  Fiscalis program. They  would  contribute to  a common  understanding 
and awareness of the possibilities for recovery assistance within the EU, and they could 
also  pay  attention  to  recent  case  law  developments.  They  could  also  help  to  increase 
awareness  of  the  existing  tools  and  guidance  (information  on  CIRCABC,  EU  and 
international  tax  collection  newsletter,  glossary  of  tax  recovery  terms,  etc.).  The 
possibility of developing e-learning courses will also be considered. 

49.  Explanatory notes on Directive 2010/24/EU have already been adopted by the Recovery 
Expert  Group,  but  they  provide  clarification  on  some  issues  only.  A  more  detailed 
commentary has been made available recently.  

17 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.1.2. Specialised workshops / working groups 

50.  A  recent  increase  of  EU  Court  of  Justice  judgments  and  new  cases  relating  to  the 

interpretation of Directive 2010/24 can be observed: 

Judgments 

C-361/02 
and 
C-362/02 

Tsapalos 
and  
Diamantakis 

Claims  which  arose  prior  to  the  entry  into  force  of  the 
Directive 

C-233/08  Kyrian 

Notification 

C-34/17 

Donnellan 

Notification – Competence of court in the requested State 
to  check  the  validity  of  the  notification  by  the  applicant 
State 

Date 

1.7.2004 

14.1.2010 

26.4.2018 

C-695/17  Metirato Oy 

Restitution of recovered claims to the insolvency estate  

14.3.2019 

C-19/19 

Pantochim 

Preferences  

Pending cases 

C-95/19 

Silcompa 

Competence of court in the requested State to determine 
where duties should be levied 

C-420/19  Heavyinstall  Competence of the court in the requested State to review 

the need for precautionary measures 

11.6.2020 

AG 
08.10.2020 

AG 
17.09.2020 

In view of these case law developments, there is a clear need for the technical experts to 
be informed and have an in-depth analysis of the judgments and possible consequences.  

These  discussions  currently  take  place  within  the  EU  Tax  Recovery  Expert  Group.  A 
more detailed preparation in ad-hoc working groups of the Recovery Expert Group or in 
specialised  workshops  or  working  groups  under  the  Fiscalis  framework  could  speed  up 
the discussions in that forum. 

51.  It  is  worth  stressing  that  some  of  the  abovementioned  judgments  (Kyrian,  Donnellan) 
specifically  address  the  fundamental  rights  of  the  tax  payers/debtors.  Nowadays,  the 
protection of tax payer/debtor rights is a major issue in the area of tax recovery and tax 
recovery assistance.  

This development is also confirmed by the list of such cases currently pending at the EU 
Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights: 
Pending cases at the EU Court of Justice 

C-788/19 

Commission 
v Spain 

Penalty payments in respect of the failure to fulfil the obligation to 
provide information in respect of overseas assets and rights 
(Fundamental freedoms under the TFEU and the EEA) 

Pending cases at the European Court of Human Rights 

6215/18 
(2018) 

Nagy v 
Hungary 

Attachment  of  goods  relating  to  (statute-barred)  tax  debts  of  the 
previous owner (Art. 1 of Protocol 1) 

38785/18 
(2018) 

44521/11 
(2019) 

Radobuljac 
v Croatia 

Offsetting  of  a  person’s  tax  debt  with  his  enforceable  claim  (Art.  1  of 
Protocol 1) 

Lack of interest on a reimbursed tax amount (Art. 1 of Protocol 1) 

Iletişim 
Hizmetleri 
Tic. Ve San. 
A. Ş. v 
Turkey 

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  analysis  of  these  specific  cases  also  requires  the  participation  of  technical  experts, 
which can best be organised in ad-hoc working groups of the Recovery Expert Group or 
in specialised workshops or working groups under the Fiscalis framework. 

3.1.3.   National information on CIRCABC 

52.  Each Member State has the possibility to share information about its national legislation 
and practice by uploading it on the CIRCABC database. This information is important for 
tax  authorities  of  other  Member  States  that  wish  to  check  the  possibilities  for  recovery 
assistance in other countries. Such information must be easily accessible, useful and up to 
date.   

At  present,  these  requirements  are  not  always  met.  The  information  published  is  not 
always  put  in  the  right  place,  or  not  always  clear  and  precise  enough.  Therefore,  the 
Commission invites the Member States to check and update their national information on 
this  platform.  Coordination  by  the  EU  Recovery  Expert  Group  should  streamline  this 
process,  so  as  to  promote  an  equal  standard  in  order  to  increase  the  accessibility  and 
relevance of that information. 

The EU Recovery Expert Group should also examine how this national information can 
be  further  improved  and/or  extended,20  and  how  this  information  can  be  further 
disseminated to all competent authorities in the Member States. 

3.2. Raising general awareness about tax recovery assistance 

53.  In  order  to  inform  the  public,  the  website  of  the  European  Commission  provides  some 
questions  and  answers  (FAQ)  with  regard  to  the  recovery  of  taxes  in  other  Member 
States, explaining inter alia the use of the uniform instruments (uniform notification form 
and uniform instrument permitting enforcement in the requested Member State).21 

54.  The  Commission  will  invite  the  Recovery  Expert  Group  to  reflect  on  possibilities  to 
improve/extend  the  above  information  and  to  make  such  information  available  also  at 
national level, for the benefit of citizens and companies. 

20  

In this regard, reference can be made to an example discussed at the meeting of the Recovery Expert Group 
in February 2020, where it was decided that Member States would provide a list of the standard information 
available  to  them  (databases,  etc.)  and  the  inquiries,  checks  and  other  actions  usually  carried  out  when 
receiving a request for information from an applicant Member State. 

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

19