Reports & Books Reports & Books about International Business and Law Mon, 19 Jun 2017 19:56:03 +0000 es-ES hourly 1 Mergers and Acquisitions European Law: Text, Materials and Cases Fri, 24 Mar 2017 18:31:52 +0000 Mergers and Acquisitions European Law: Text, Materials and Cases


The history of the Mergers Directives started in 1978 with the 3rd Company Law Directive on mergers of public companies. On 23 July 1990 the Council adopted Directive 90/434/EEC on a common system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares concerning companies of different Member States (the Merger Directive). The objective of the Merger Directive was to remove fiscal obstacles to cross-border reorganisations involving companies situated in two or more Member States. This followed by thee important 2005 EU legal acts: the European Company statute, the amendment to EU Mergers Directive and the 10th Company Law Directive on cross-border mergers.

Mergers & Acquisitions European Law: Text, Materials and Cases provides a complete guide to the subject in a single volume, containing a valuable base for the study of this interesting EC tax law subject. Written by an experienced author and leading authority in European Union tax law, who has been working in the European Parliament, this text comprises a unique balance of text, cases and materials, combining vivid account of the Mergers Directives problems today with those of a traditional casebook. The author’s clear explanations and analyses of the current issues of the Mergers (including the protection of minority stakeholders, application of the Directives and the redomiciliation of companies across Europe) law provide invaluable support to readers interested in one of the most important areas of the EC company law.

Relevant and focused in contemporary issues, the book combines in-depth coverage of the Directives and its amendments in an accessible way,  providing an exceptional depth of analysis in many crucial issues with a wealth of cases and materials.

About the author

Salvador Trinxet Llorca is a tax law professor and an international tax adviser. His research centers on EC law and international tax law. He has also published in learned journals and is editor-in-chief of Legal Magazine. He was legal adviser to the European Parliament for several years. His main teaching interests are in the fields of international private law, cross-border taxation and global businesses.


The EU acquis in company law

The EU company law directives establish disclosure requirements for limited-liability companies and for the branches of these companies that are established in another Member State (First and Eleventh Directive), set minimum requirements concerning the capital of public limited-liability companies (Second Directive) and concerning the procedures for domestic mergers and divisions (Third and Sixth Directives) and for cross-border mergers (Tenth Directive). Furthermore, the Twelfth Company law Directive introduced the possibility to found limited-liability companies with a single member and more recent directives dealt with the procedure to follow in the case of a takeover bid (Takeover bid Directive) and with shareholder voting (Shareholders’ rights Directive).

The Cross Border Merger Directive

The Cross-border Merger Directive is largely inspired by its predecessor, the Third Council
Directive 78/855/2 of 9 October 1978 concerning mergers of public limited liability companies
(the ‘Third Directive’). In fact, the third Directive has been an indispensable tool for
making the Tenth Directive possible.

The purpose of the Directive on cross-border mergers is facilitating  consolidation
between companies from different EU Member States by reducing  administrative and legislative  difficulties they find in crossborder mergers. For example, the ECJ concluded in the SEVIC judgment that, while the “protection
of the interests of creditors, minority shareholders and employees . . . and the preservation of
the effectiveness of fiscal supervision and the fairness of commercial transactions . . . may, in
certain circumstances and under certain conditions, justify a measure restricting the freedom
of establishment” a general refusal to allow cross-border mergers where national mergers
are allowed “goes beyond what is necessary to protect those interests”.

The court, in this case, also insisted that “[i]t should be noted in that respect that, whilst Community
harmonisation rules are useful for facilitating cross-border mergers, the existence of such harmonisation rules cannot be made a precondition for the implementation of the freedom of establishment laid down by Articles 43 EC and 48 EC.”There were (from 1965 upwards) apasionate debates before the Directive were agreed.   At the end, much attention was dedicted to the protection of minority shareholders and employee rights.

Creditor Protection

In the Directive, creditor protection was an issue. As explained by Geert T.M.J. Raaijmakers and Thijs.P.H. Olthoff in “Creditor protection in cross-border mergers; unfinished business”, “as all assets and liabilities are being transferred, legal mergers may give rise to risks for creditors of the disappearing company when the liabilities of the acquiring company exceed the assets of the disappearing company or for creditors of the acquiring company when the liabilities of the disappearing company exceed the assets of the acquiring company”.

As stated by Hertig and Kanda (G. Hertig & H. Kanda, in Kraakman , Oxford 2004, p. 71.), “because the corporate form defines the pool of assets that bond all corporate contracts, all parties who contract with corporations benefit from creditor protection”.

The only provisions of the Directive on creditor protection were the following ones. Conditions relating to cross-border mergers), section 1 (b) of the Directive provides that a company taking part in a cross-border merger shall  comply with the provisions and formalities of the  national law to which it is subject. The laws of a Member   State enabling its national authorities to oppose a given   internal merger on grounds of public interest shall also be applicable to a cross-border merger where at least one of the merging companies is subject to the law of that  Member State. Section 2 states that the provisions and formalities referred to in paragraph 1 of the Directive shall, in particular, include those concerning the decisionmaking   process relating to the merger and, taking into account the cross-border nature of the merger, the protection    of creditors of the merging companies, debenture holders and     the holders of securities or shares, as well as of employees as    regards rights other than those governed by Article 16. A    Member State may, in the case of companies participating in a   cross-border merger and governed by its law, adopt provisions  designed to ensure appropriate protection for minority   members who have opposed the cross-border merger.

In Art. 6, Section 2 (c), the Directive states that    for each of the merging companies and subject to the  additional requirements imposed by the Member State to which the company concerned is subject,it shall be published, in the national gazette of that Member State, an indication, for each of the merging companies, of the  arrangements made for the exercise of the rights of creditors and of any minority members of the merging companies and the address at which complete information on those arrangements may be obtained free of charge.

This causes different systems of creditor protection in EU cross-border mergers.


In the first Directives, minority shareholdrs were not a key concern. Article 2 of the Third Directive, which was the inspiration of the Tenth Directive, states that it only applies to companies
merging ‘governed by their national laws’ . Cross-border mergers were, then,  not covered by the Directive (see also the Daily Mail judgment). Except for the exception provided in its Article 28. the Third Directive does no offer any specific minority protection provisions.

Also in the SE Regulation and the  Third Directive, the decision to merge is taken by a majority decision
of the general meeting of all merging companies (see Articles 7 and 23 of the Third Directive and
Article 23 of the SE Regulation). But minority protection was much less important in 1978 and the Third Directive shows that.

In Italy, the cross border issue was based on the applicable law. Italian law did not accept easily
that a cross-border transfer of headquarter of an Italian company means a change of corporate law; rather, it might cause the winding up of the company according to Italian law. A 2003 law introduced a withdrawal right for minority shareholders, at a fair value.

The implementation of the Directive by the German Bundestag,  on 19 April 2007, included a modification to the ‘Umwandlungsgesetz’ (UmwGE), which provide a minority protection system, as it was the case with the implementing of the SE-Regulation. As described by Geert T.M.J. Raaijmakers and Thijs.P.H. Olthoff in “Creditor protection in cross-border mergers; unfinished business”, “the German cross-border minority protection system … is organized as a three step system:

  • As is the case for a national merger, each single shareholder has the right to challenge the
    merger at the pre-merger stage and so prevent the merger from taking place; it will then be
    up to the court to decide whether the merger procedure can be continued.
  •  The minority shareholder can also submit the exchange ratio to the court in order to achieve
    an improvement thereof. This is only possible if the German company is the disappearing
    entity, if the law of the other Member States governing the other companies involved
    provides for a similar procedure, or if all the other merging companies have agreed that this
    procedure would apply. The merger itself can take place; if later on the court awards an
    additional cash payment by way of compensation for the deficient exchange ratio, all
    shareholders of the German company should benefit from this, even those who voted in
    favour of the merger. There is no limit as to the height of the amount to be paid out to the
    German shareholders.
  • Finally, a dissenting minority shareholder has a right to withdraw, as he would also have
    in case of a national merger, provided that there is reciprocity or pre-merger approval.”

Dissolution of a company following a merger

Traditionally, national laws and government actions discouraged the disaparition of a national company caused by a merger. The Dutch legislator, for example, was concerned about the shareholders of a Dutch company disappearing following a merger, on the presumption that a shareholder in a cross-border merger is less protected than a shareholder in a national merger.

In my opinion, minority protection to the shareholders of the companies which disappear in a merger should be greater only because they will “suffer” a change in applicable corporate law, since now they are shareholders of a foreign (if applicable) company. 

EU regulation follow in some cases this approach, which can mean the declaration of a merger to be null and void. Article 17 (Validity) of the Cross Border Directive provides that a cross-border merger which has taken effect as provided for in Article 12 may not be declared null and void, following the path initiated on the SE Regulation. Article 12 (Entry into effect of the cross-border merger) states that the law of the Member State to whose jurisdiction the company resulting from the cross-border merger is subject shall determine the date on which the cross-border merger takes effect. That date must be after the scrutiny referred to in Article 11 has been carried out. The consideration (8) of the Preamble also states that, in order to protect the interests of members and others, the legal effects of the cross-border merger, distinguishing as to whether the company resulting from the crossborder merger is an acquiring company or a new company, should be specified. In the interests of legal certainty, it should no longer be possible, after the date on which a cross-border merger takes effect, to declare the merger null and void.

This national political (through the EU institutions) and legislators concern about shareholders of the company which disappear because of the merger shows that 40 years of EC harmonization did not mean enough confidence across Europe. Minority withdrawal or appraisal rights “define the legal attractiveness of a given jurisdiction, because they influence the degree of freedom granted to controlling shareholders and managers that want to change the applicable company law, and the level of protection of investors” (see K. Geens, ‘De nieuwe harmonisatiedynamiek van het vennootschapsrecht: een “eerste klas” begrafenis van het Europees vennootschapsrecht na 50 jaar?’, T.R.V. 2006, 75-89.). In this regard, “‘minority protection may adversely affect the development of a free market
for companies in Europe, granting a sort of veto power to minorities that oppose the merger” (Ventoruzzo, supra note 6, p. 75, see also p. 50, where the author states that minority protection may become a central issue in corporate arbitrage among different systems of corporate law).  

Ex ante and ex post systems

Because, in general,  the disappearing company have greater need for protection then the creditors of the acquiring company, some authors argue that the Directive should be made a distinction. But the distinction is not followed across Europe.  The Netherlands, France, Belgium and Germany, for example, did not make such distinction.

Geert T.M.J. Raaijmakers and Thijs.P.H. Olthoff highlights the difference between ex ante and ex post systems:  ” In an ex ante system, protection for creditors is provided before the date the merger
becomes effective. … The advantage of this system is that there is certainty concerning the position of the creditors at the time the merger is being executed. As a result, there is less uncertainty that the execution of this legal merger may be affected by creditors afterwards. The downside, however, is that creditor
protection proceedings before the merger is being executed may delay the process of the merger
itself. …. In this system, creditors can only invoke their rights after the merger has become effective. This way the completion of the merger cannot be delayed. Only the acquiring company can be addressed with a claim, as obviously the disappearing company has already disappeared. Whereas this system avoids the merger process
being delayed by creditor protection proceedings, it provides no certainty regarding the position
of creditors at the time the merger is being executed.”

The ex ante system is adopted, for example, by the Netherlands and France. An ex post system is, for example, adopted by Germany.

In practical terms, the real problem here appears in the cross-border merger situations, since national mergers do not offer problems in this case. For example, in a situation of a merger between a German and a French company, it should be decided in advance if  an ex ante or ex post systems should be used.

Redomiciliaton of Companies

There are some interesting indirect consequences from the Directive. One of them is the strenght of the option in favour of redomiciliation of companies across the European Union. The Directive, in general, gives an option for companies to change their corporate law through the funding of a new company and merging it with the existing company. The legal possibility that American companies move registered offices between the US states is commonly used, specially among the public corporations, since the end of the 19th century. There is an interesting book in the subject (” Corporate Choice of Law –  A comparision of the United States and European Systems and a proposal for a European Directive”), by Christian Kersting. In the US, a transfer of the state of incorporation is made often by merging the company from a non-Delaware Estate into a Delaware shell or new company. The procedure looks the same as the one carried on in many European countries, but only on the condition in the latter case that is performed in the same jurisdiction, not being the same jurisdiction requirement necessary in the US case. The flight of thousand of German businesses to be incorporate in the UK may show that the market for incorporations in Europe has already emerged.

Some steps have been made toward the establishment in the EU of a “market of incorporations” (following the Delaware model). The first may be the introduction of the SE, which allows some companies to change the “social domicile” to other EU country. The second is the ECJ’s judgments in favour of a non discriminatory treatment of all EU companies (in the right to freedom of establishment framework), including several famous cases (Centros, Überseering, and Inspire Art judgments). Finally, the Cross Border Merger Directive may help create such market of incorporations.

Centros, Überseering, and Inspire Art EC case law apply to new companies. Nothing in the European treaties seems to be a deterrent to use the same principles with companies already formed. On the contrary, as explained in my book about corporate redomiciliations, the “real seat” (“siège reel” in French) rules (which apply almost in all Continental Europe for many years) should be changed. Such real doctrine have been preventing Europea companies from circunventing their national laws.

According to Siems (Siems, Mathias M. , The European Directive on Cross-Border Mergers: An International Model? (December 01, 2008). Columbia Journal of European Law, Vol. 11, pp. 167-186, 2005) may be some options that “could, in practice, be more important than cross-border mergers under the terms of the new directive.

1. The direct alternative is the possibility of incorporating a European Company (SE). …

2. The first indirect alternative to a cross-border merger could be for a corporation to
place its trust in internal growth in order to stay competitive.  However, due to the in-
creasingly international economy, this strategy can be problematic. If most of its com-
petitors merge, a corporation that relies on its own growth may not succeed.
Secondly, corporations may therefore engage in joint ventures. This solution can be
advantageous to a unified corporation. It is more flexible and it may be preferable for
political and practical reasons that the corporations retain their independence. … Thirdly, a corporation might attempt to grow by (hostile) takeovers. Yet, despite
the new European takeover directive, cross-border takeovers will not always be possible.”

In my opinion the options are the following:

1. A company funds a new company in other European state, transfers all its assets to it and then start the procedures to dissolves itself. In this case, discriminatory tax law may be applicable in some Member States, but this probably violates the freedom of establishment principle (art. 43 and 48 of the EC Treaty). The Lasteyrie case is an example of fhe favour from the ECJ.

2. Using the cross-border Directive to reincorporate the company. The only deterrant may be the rules of employee co-determination, when applicable.

3.  Direct cross-border transfer of the statutory seat of the company, without losing its original legal personality. This first was proposed by the European Commission public consultation for a Directive in 2004.

European Union Tax Materials Tue, 14 Mar 2017 20:03:36 +0000 European Union Tax Materials

Content of this Book

EU Treaty

This part contains the following:

  • Treaty on European Union (extract)
  • Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
  • Table comparing Article numbers before and after Treaty of Lisbon (in force 2009)


This part contains the following:

In relation to Direct taxation:

  • Parent-Subsidiary (2011, 1990-2003) (with expert commentary)
  • Merger (2009, 1990-2005)
  • Interest and Royalty (2003-2004 and 2011 Proposal) (with expert commentary)
  • Savings Income (2003 and 2008 Proposal)
  • Council Decision of 2 June 2004 (2004/911/EC) on the signing and conclusion of the Agreement
    between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation (etc.)
  • Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation (etc.)
  • Memorandum of Understanding of 26 October 2004 between the European Community,
    the Kingdom of Belgium, (etc.)
  • Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (‘CCCTB’) (2011 Proposal)
  • Indirect taxes on the raising of capital (2008) (with expert commentary)

In relation to Mutual Assistance:

  • Administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (2011)
  • Mutual Assistance for the Recovery of Claims (2010) (with expert commentary)

In relation to Value-Added Tax:

  • First VAT Directive (with expert commenary)
  • Second VAT Directive
  • VAT Directive (28 November 2006)
  • Correlation table articles (old) Sixth VAT Directive to 2006 VAT Directive

European Commission Communications

This part contains the following:

  • Communication of 19 December 2006 from the Commission to the Council, the European
    Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee on co-ordinating Member
    States’ direct tax systems in the Internal Market(COM(2006) 823 final)
  • Communication of 19 December 2006 from the Commission to the Council, etc., on tax treatment
    of losses in cross-border situations (COM(2006) 824 final)
  • Communication of 19 December 2006 from the Commission to the Council, etc., on exit taxation
    and the need for co-ordination of Member States’ tax policies (COM(2006) 825 final)
  • Communication from the Commission to the Council, etc., on the application of anti-abuse
    measures in the area of direct taxation – within the EU and in relation to third countries
    (COM(2007) 785 final)
  • Consultation paper: Request for contribution on factual examples and possible ways to tackle
    double non-taxation cases
  •  Communicaton of 27 June 2012 of the Commission on concrete ways to reinforce the fight against
    tax fraud and tax evasion including in relation to third countries
  • Communicaton of 6 December 2012 of the Commission on an action plan to strengthen the fight
    against tax fraud and tax evasion.


This part contains the following:

  • EEIG (Nr. 2137/85)
  • Statute for a European Foundation (2012 Proposal) (exerpt)

Arbitration Convention (1990)

This part contains the following:

  • Text Convention (1990, 1999) (with expert commentary)
  • Revised Code of Conduct for the implementation of the Arbitration Convention (2009)


This part contains the following:

  • Taxation of certain items of income received by non-residents (1993) (with expert commentary)
  • Taxation of small and medium-sized enterprises (1994) (with expert commentary)

State Aid and Tax Competition

This part contains the following:

  • EC Commission Notice of 11 November 1998 on the application of the State aid rules (with expert commentary)
  • EC Commission Report of 9 February 2004 on the implementation of the Commission Notice on
    the application of the State aid rules
  • Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the
    application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty
  • Resolution of 1 December 1997 on Code of conduct for business taxation (1997)
  • Report Primarolo Group on Code of conduct for business taxation (1999)

Transfer Pricing (in European Union)

This part contains the following:

  • Resolution on Code of conduct on transfer pricing documentation (2006)
  • Communication of 26 February 2007 from the Commission to the Council [etc.] on the work of the
    EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum in the field of dispute avoidance and resolution procedures
    and on Guidelines for Advance Pricing Agreements within the EU

Other Judicial Decisions

This part contains the following:

In relation to selected national judicial decisions:

  • UK: Marks and Spencer PLC v HM Inspector of Taxes
  • Special Commissioners, Decision released on 17 December 2002
  • High Court of Justice, Order of 16 July 2003 for ECJ preliminary ruling

In relation to EFTA Court decisions:

  • 23 November 2004, Case E-1/04 (Fokus Bank ASA v The Norwegian State)
  • May 2008, Case E-7/07 (Seabrokers AS v The Norwegian State, represented by Skattedirektoratet
    (the Directorate of Taxes))
  • 2 December 2013, Case E-14/13 (EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland)
  • 27 June 2014, Case E-26/13 (The Icelandic State v Atli Gunnarsson)

Exchange of Information & Other Administrative Assistance

This part contains the following:

  • EU Directive on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation (2011) (with expert commentary)
  • Council of Europe / OECD 1988 Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, as
    amended by 2010 Protocol


This part contains the following:

  • Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Text (excerpt)
  • Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: First Protocol

Tax Judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union

A book on Court of Justice of the European Union tax case law (tax materials) is available.

International Tax Materials Tue, 14 Mar 2017 19:15:28 +0000 International Tax Materials

Content of this Book

On the basis of the 2014 version of the OECD Model Convention, comparisons are included with the 1963 OECD Draft Convention, the 2011 United Nations Models and the 2016 United States Model. The OECD Model itself, the introduction to this Model and the OECD Commentary are presented in a way in which the successive changes, additions and deletions that were made to the 1977 text in 1992, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010 and 2014 can be readily identified. The first volume also includes the current United Nations Commentary. In addition to these Model and Commentary texts, various OECD discussion drafts with proposed changes to the OECD Model and/or Commentary have been included, along with a series of OECD reports: the 1999 Partnership Report, the 2010 Report on the attribution of profits to PEs and the current version of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines.

Model Tax Treaties, etc.

This part includes the:

  • OECD Model Tax Convention 2014 (with commentary)
  • List of OECD Member Countries, and of Non-member Countries that have published
    their position regarding the OECD Model Tax Convention and Commentary
  • Recommendation (1997) of the OECD Council concerning the Model Tax Convention
    on Income and on Capital
  • Text (2014) of the OECD Model Convention on Income and Capital (with commentary)
  • Expert explanation of the integrated texts of the OECD ‘Introduction’ and ‘Commentary’
  • OECD ‘Introduction’ to OECD Model Tax Convention and Commentary 1977 and 1992-2014
  • OECD ‘Introduction’ to the Positions of Non-member Countries
  • OECD Commentary on the Model Conventions of 1977 and 1992 (incorporating the changes of
    1994, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2010 and 2014)
  • Comparison of various model income tax treaties: 2006 US Model Income Tax Convention,
    2011 UN Model Convention, 1963 OECD Draft Convention and 2014 OECD Model Tax
  • OECD Draft Convention and Commentary and Recommendation
  • UN Model Double Taxation Convention 2011 (2001, 1980)
  • UN Commentary 2011
  • United States: Technical Explanation of the 2006 US Model Income Tax Convention
  • Intra-ASEAN Model Double Taxation Convention (1987)
  • OECD Model Double Taxation Convention on Estates and Inheritances and on Gifts (1982)

OECD Reports and Guidelines

This part includes:

  • OECD Transfer pricing guidelines for multinational enterprises and tax administrations
  • OECD Report: The attribution of profits to permanent establishments – Parts I–IV (2010)
  • 1690 OECD Report: The application of the OECD Model Tax Convention to partnerships (1999)
  • The Granting of treaty benefits with respect to the income of collective investment vehicles
    (executive summary) (April 2010)
  • OECD Report on Harmful Tax Competition – An Emerging Global Issue (1998)
  • OECD Consolidated Application Note – Guidance in applying the 1998 report to preferential
    tax regimes (2004)
  • OECD Harmful Tax Project: 2004 Progress report
  • [Art. 10-12] Report OECD Informal Consultative Group – Possible improvements to procedures for
    tax relief for cross-border investors (executive summary) (January 2009)
  • [Art. 10-12] Treaty relief and Compliance Enhancement (TRACE) – Implementation Package
    approved by CFA (January 2013)
  • [Art. 25] OECD Draft Manual on effective mutual agreement procedures (MEMAP) (March 2006)
    (table of contents)
  • [Art. 26] OECD Manual on the implementation of exchange of information provisions for tax
    purposes, approved by the OECD Committee on Fiscal Affairs on 23 January 2006 (table of
  • [Art. 26] Keeping It Safe: The OECD guide on the protection of confidentiality of information
    exchanged for tax purposes (July 2012)
  • [Art. 26] Automatic Exchange of Information: What it is, how it works, benefits, what remains to
    be done (July 2012)

OECD Discussion drafts

This part includes the:

  • OECD Discussion draft on Art. 1 (Persons covered): The granting of treaty benefits with respect to the income of collective investment vehicles (December 2009)
  • OECD Discussion draft on Art. 5 (Permanent establishment) – Interpretation and application of Article 5 (Permanent establishment) of the OECD Model Tax Convention (October 2012)
  • OECD Discussion draft on Art. 9 / TP Guidelines: Revised discussion draft on transfer pricing aspects of intangibles (July 2013)
  • OECD Discussion draft on Art. 10 (Dividends): Tax treaty issues related to REITs (October 2007)
  • OECD Discussion draft on Articles 10, 11 and 12: Revised proposals concerning the meaning of ‘beneficial owner’ in Articles 10, 11 and 12 of the OECD Model Tax Convention (October 2012)
  • OECD Discussion draft on Art. 17 (Artistes and sportsmen): Application of Article 17 (Artistes and sportsmen) of the OECD Model Tax Convention (April 2010)
  • OECD Discussion draft on Art. 18 (Pensions) Tax treaty treatment of termination payments (June 2013)
  • OECD Discussion draft on Art. 24 (Non-discrimination) Application and interpretation of Article 24 (Nondiscrimination) (May 2007)

OECD Reports on e-commerce

This part includes the:

  • Committee of Fiscal Affairs: Clarification on the application of the permanent establishment
    definition in e-commerce – [Proposed] Changes to the Commentary on the Model Tax
    Convention on Article 5 (22 December 2000) (table of contents)
  • Technical Advisory Group discussion paper: Attribution of profit to a permanent establishment
    involved in electronic commerce transactions (February 2001) (table of contents)
  • Technical Advisory Group report to the OECD CFA WP No. 1: Tax treaty characterisation issues
    arising from e-commerce (November 2002) (table of contents)
  • Technical Advisory Group discussion paper: Are the current Treaty rules for taxing business profits
    appropriate for e-commerce? (November 2003) (table of contents)
  • E-commerce: Transfer Pricing and Business Profits Taxation (May 2005)


This part includes:

  • Action 6: Treaty abuse – Final Report 5 October 2015
  • Action 7: Artificial avoidance of PE – Final Report 5 October 2015
  • Attribution of profits to (Agency) PE – Discussion Draft 4 July 2016
  • Action 8-10 – Revised Guidance on Profit Splits – Discussion Draft 4 July 2016

Treaty law

This part includes the:

  • Vienna Convention on the law of treaties: Text excerpts, Commentary ad the  Official explanation of Articles 31, 32 and 33
  • General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (excerpt)
  • Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Exchange of information & other administrative assistance

This part includes the:

  •  EU Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation, as amended in 2014
  • Council of Europe / OECD 1988 Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, as
    amended by 2010 Protocol (with Expert Commentary, Text and Explanatory Report)
  • OECD (Model) Agreement on Exchange of Information on Tax Matters (2002)
  • OECD Automatic exchange of information (2014)
  • Declaration OECD Council – 6 May 2014
  • Standard for automatic exchange of financial information – Common reporting standard –
    13 February & 15 July 2014

Selected tax treaties

This part includes:

  • Nordic Convention (1996, 1997, 2008)

Overview of national tax systems

European Union Tax Cases Fri, 10 Mar 2017 21:48:59 +0000 European Union Tax Cases

Court of Justice of the European Union Tax Case Law with Commentary

A comprehensive collection of over 250 full texts (with excerps, in some cases) of European tax case law delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union, with commentary on the significance of each case.

In addition to the full text of the decisions of the EU Court of Justice (virtually all in English), the Opinions of the Advocate General are reproduced in many cases.

Content of this Book

Alphabetic list of judgments included in this work:

  • 28 January 1986, Case 270/83 (Commission v French Republic [‘Avoir fiscal’])
  • 27 September 1988, Case 81/87 (The Queen v … Daily Mail and General Trust plc)
  • 8 May 1990, Case 175/88 (Biehl v Administration des Contributions du Grand-Duché de Luxembourg)
  • 28 January 1992, Case C-204/90 (Bachmann v Belgian State)
  • 26 January 1993, Case C-112/91 (Werner v Finanzamt Aachen-Innenstadt)
  • 13 July 1993, Case C-330/91 (The Queen v … Commerzbank AG)
  • 12 April 1994, Case C-1/93 (Halliburton v Staatssecretaris van Financiën)
  • 14 February 1995, Case C-279/93 (Finanzamt Köln-Altstadt v Schumacker)
  • 11 August 1995, Case C-80/94 (Wielockx v Inspecteur der Directe Belastingen)
  • 26 October 1995, Case C-151/94 (Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg [‘Biehl II’])
  • 14 November 1995, Case C-484/93 (Svensson and Gustavsson v Ministre du Logement et de
  • 15 December 1995, Case C-415/93 ([Football associations] v Bosman) (excerpt)
  • 27 June 1996, Case C-107/94 (Asscher v Staatssecretaris van Financiën)
  • 17 October 1996, Cases C-283/94, C-291/94 and C-292/94 (Denkavit International BV a.o. v
    Bundesamt für Finanzen)
  • 15 May 1997, Case C-250/95 (Futura Participations SA and Singer v Administration des
  • 17 July 1997, Case C-28/95 (Leur-Bloem v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen
    Amsterdam 2)
  • 28 April 1998, Case C-118/96 (Safir v Skattemyndigheten i Dalarnas Län)
  • 12 May 1998, Case C-336/96 (Gilly v Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Bas-Rhin)
  • 16 July 1998, Case C-264/96 (Imperial Chemical Industries plc [ICI] v K. Hall Colmer [Her Majesty’s
    Inspector of Taxes])
  • 29 April 1999, Case C-311/97 (Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Elliniko Dimosio [Greek State])
  • 14 September 1999, Case C-391/97 (Gschwind v Finanzamt Aachen-Außenstadt)
  • 21 September 1999, Case C-307/97 (Compagnie de Saint-Gobain v Finanzamt Aachen-Innenstadt)
  • 14 October 1999, Case C-439/97 (Sandoz GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
    Niederösterreich und Burgenland)
  • 14 October 1999, Case C-229/98 (Vander Zwalmen & Massart v Belgian State)
  • 26 October 1999, Case C-294/97 (Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG v Finanzamt Dortmund-Unna
  • 28 October 1999, Case C-55/98 (Skatteministeriet v Bent Vestergaard)
  • 18 November 1999, Case C-200/98 (X AB & Y AB v Riksskatteverket)
  • 13 April 2000, Case C-251/98 (C. Baars v Inspecteur der Belastingdienst Particulieren/
    Ondernemingen Gorinchem)
  • 13 April 2000, Case C-420/98 (W.N. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën)
  • 16 May 2000, Case C-87/99 (Zurstrassen v Administation des Contributions Directes)
  • 6 June 2000, Case C-35/98 (Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Verkooijen)
  • 8 June 2000, Case C-375/98 (Ministério Público, Fazenda Pública v Epson Europe BV)
  • 14 December 2000, Case C-141/99 [AMID] v Belgian State)
  • 8 March 2001, Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98 (Metallgesellschaft Ltd a.o. v Commissioners of
    Inland Revenue, H.M. Attorney General)
  • 4 October 2001, Case C-294/99 (Athinaiki Zithopiia AE v Elliniko Domision [Greek State])
  • 15 January 2002, Case C-43/00 (Andersen og Jensen ApS v Skatteministeriet)
  • 30 May 2002, Case C-516/99 (Schmid)
  • 3 October 2002, Case C-136/00 (Danner)
  • 5 November 2002, Case C-208/00 (Überseering BV v Nordic Construction Company
    Baumanagement GmbH (NCC))
  • 21 November 2002, Case C-436/00 (X and Y v Riksskatteverket)
  • 12 December 2002, Case C-385/00 (De Groot v Staatssecretaris van Financiën)
  • 12 December 2002, Case C-324/00 (Lankhorst-Hohorst v Finanzamt Steinfurt)
  • 12 June 2003, Case C-234/01 (Arnoud Gerritse v Finanzamt Neukölln-Nord)
  • 26 June 2003, Case C-422/01 (Skandia, Ramstedt v Riksskatteverket)
  • 18 September 2003, Case C-168/01 (Bosal Holding v Staatssecretaris van Financiën)
  • 25 September 2003, Case C-58/01 (Océ van der Grinten NV v Inland Revenue Commissioners)
  • 13 November 2003, Case Case C-209/01 (Theodor Schilling, Angelika Fleck-Schilling v Finanzamt
  • 13 November 2003, Case C-42/02 (Lindman v Skatterättelsnämnden)
  • 11 December 2003, Case C-364/01 (Barbier v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Particulieren/
    Ondernemingen Buitenland)
  • 4 March 2004, Case C-334/02 (Commission v French Republic) [‘Fixed levy’]
  • 11 March 2004, Case C-9/02 (Lasteyrie du Saillant v Ministère de l’Economie, des Finances et de
  • 8 June 2004, Case C-268/03 (Jean-Claude De Baeck v Belgische Staat)
  • 1 July 2004, Case C-169/03 (Florian W. Wallentin v Riksskatteverket)
  • 15 July 2004, Case C-315/02 (Anneliese Lenz v Finanzlandesdirektion für Tirol)
  • 15 July 2004, Case C-242/03 (Ministre des Finances v Jean-Claude Weidert, Élisabeth Paulus)
  • 7 September 2004, Case C-319/02 (Petri Mikael Manninen)
  • 9 December 2004, Case C-219/03 (Commission v Spain)
  • 10 March 2005, Case C-39/04 (Laboratoires Fournier SA v Direction des vérifications nationales et
  • 5 July 2005, Case C-376/03 (D. v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/particuliern/Ondernemingen
    buitenland te Heerlen)
  • 12 July 2005, Case C-403/03 (Egon Schempp v Finanzamt München V)
  • 8 September 2005, Case C-512/03 (J.E.J. Blanckaert v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/
    Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen)
  • 13 December 2005, Case C-446/03 (Marks & Spencer plc v David Halsey (Her Majesty’s Inspector
    of Taxes))
  • 19 January 2006, Case C-265/04 (Margaretha Bouanich v Skatteverket)
  • 21 February 2006, Case C-152/03 (Hans-Jürgen Ritter-Coulais, Monique Ritter-Coulais v
    Finanzamt Germersheim)
  • 23 February 2006, Case C-253/03 (CLT-UFA SA v Finanzamt Köln-West)
  • 23 February 2006, Case C-513/03 (Heirs of M.E.A. van Hilten-van der Heijden v Inspecteur van de
    Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen)
  • 23 February 2006, Case C-471/04 (Finanzamt Offenbach am Main-Land v Keller Holding GmbH)
  • 6 July 2006, Case C-346/06 (Robert Hans Conijn v Finanzamt Hamburg-Nord)
  • 7 September 2006, Case C-470/04 (N v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Oost/kantoor Almelo)
  • 12 September 2006, Case C-196/04 (Cadbury Schweppes plc Cadbury Schweppes Overseas Ltd v
    Commissioners of Inland Revenue)
  • 14 September 2006, Case C-386/04 (Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer v Finanzamt München
    für Körperschaften)
  • 3 October 2006, Case C-290/04 (FKP Scorpio Konzertproduktionen GmbH v Finanzamt HamburgEimsbüttel)
  • 26 October 2006, Case C-345/05 (Commission v Portuguese Republic)
  • 9 November 2006, Case C-433/04 (Commission v Belgium)
  • 9 November 2006, Case C-520/04 (Pirkko Marjatta Turpeinen)
  • 14 November 2006, Case C-513/04 (Mark Kerckhaert, Bernadette Morres v Belgische Staat)
  • 12 December 2006, Case C-374/04 (Test Claimants in Class IV of the ACT Group Litigation v
    Commissioners of Inland Revenue)
  • 12 December 2006, Case C-446/04 (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of
    Inland Revenue)
  • 14 December 2006, Case C-170/05 (Denkavit Internationaal BV, Denkavit France SARL v Ministre
    de l’Economie, des Finances et de l’Industrie)
  • 18 January 2007, Case C-104/06 (Commission v Sweden)
  • 25 January 2007, Case C-329/05 (Finanzamt Dinslaken v Gerold Meindl, Christine Meindl-Berger)
  • 30 January 2007, Case C-150/04 (Commission v Denmark)
  • 15 February 2007, Case C-345/04 (Centro Equestre da Lezíria Grande Lda v Bundesamt für
  • 6 March 2007, Case C-292/04 (Wienand Meilicke, Heidi Christa Weyde, Marina Stöffler v
    Finanzamt Bonn-Innenstadt)
  • 13 March 2007, Case C-524/04 (Test Claimants in the Thin Cap Group Litigation v Commissioners
    of Inland Revenue)
  • 22 March 2007, Case C-383/05 (Raffaele Talotta v État belge)
  • 29 March 2007, Case C-347/04 (Rewe Zentralfinanz eG v Finanzamt Köln-Mitte)
  • 10 May 2007, Case C-492/04 Lasertec v FA Emmendingen
  • 10 May 2007, Case C-102/05 (Skatteverket v A and B)
  • 24 May 2007, Case C-157/05 (Holböck v FA Salzburg-Land)
  • 5 July 2007, Case C-522/04 (Commission v Belgium)
  • 5 July 2007, Case C-321/05 (Hans Markus Kofoed v Skatteministeriet)
  • 18 July 2007, Case C-231/05 (Oy AA)
  • 18 July 2007, Case C-182/06 (Grand-duché de Luxembourg v Hans Ulrich Lakebrink and Katrin
  • 11 September 2007, Case C-76/05 (Herbert Schwarz, Marga Gootjes-Schwarz v Finanzamt Bergisch
  • 11 September 2007, Case C-318/05 (Commission v Germany)
  • 11 October 2007, Case C-451/05 (Europénne et Luxembourgeoise d’investissements SA (ELISA) v
    Directeur général des impôts, Ministère public)
  • 11 October 2007, Joined Cases C-283/06 and C-312/06 (KÖGÁZ rt, E-ON IS Hungary kft, E-ON
    DÉDÁSZ rt, Schneider Electric Hungária rt, TESCO Áruházak rt, OTP Garancia Biztosító rt, OTP
    Bank rt, ERSTE Bank Hungary rt, Vodafone Magyarország Mobil Távközlési rt (C-283/06) v
    Zala Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal Vezetõje) and (OTP Garancia Biztosító rt (C-312/06) v Vas
    Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal)
  • 11 October 2007, Case C-443/06 (Erika Waltraud Ilse Hollmann v Fazende Pública)
  • 25 October 2007, Case C-427/05 (Agenzia delle Entrate – Ufficio di Genova 1 v Porto Antico di
    Genova SpA)
  • 25 October 2007, Case C-464/05 (Maria Geurts, Dennis Vogten v Administratie van de BTW,
    registratie en domeinen, Belgische Staat)
  • 6 November 2007, Case C-415/06 (Stahlwerk Ergste Westig GmbH v. Finanzamt DüsseldorfMettmann)
  • 8 November 2007, Case C-379/05 (Amurta SGPS v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Amsterdam)
  • 6 December 2007, Case C-298/05 (Columbus Container Services BVBA & Co. v. Finanzamt
  • 18 December 2007, Case C-101/05 (Skatteverket v A)
  • 18 December 2007, Case C-281/06 (Hans-Dieter Jundt, Hedwig Jundt v Finanzamt Offenburg)
  • 18 December 2007, Case C-436/06 (Per Grønfeldt, Tatiana Grønfeldt v Finanzamt Hamburg –
    Am Tierpark)
  • 17 January 2008, Case C-152/05 (Commission v Germany)
  • 17 January 2008, Case C-256/06 (Theodor Jäger v Finanzamt Kusel-Landstuhl)
  • 17 January 2008, Case C-105/07 (NV Lammers & Van Cleef v Belgische Staat)
  • 28 February 2008, Case C-293/06 (Deutsche Shell GmbH v Finanzamt für Großunternehmen in
  • 13 March 2008, Case C-248/06 (Commission v Spain)
  • 3 April 2008, Case C-27/07 (Banque Fédérative du Crédit Mutuel v Ministre de l’Économie, des
    Finances et de l’Industrie)
  • 23 April 2008, Case C-201/05 (The Test Claimants in the CFC and Dividend Group Litigation v
    Commissioners of Inland Revenue)
  • 15 May 2008, Case C-414/06 (Lidl Belgium GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Heilbronn)
  • 20 May 2008, Case C-194/06 (Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Orange European Smallcap Fund
  • 26 June 2008, Case C-284/06 (Finanzamt Hamburg-Am Tierpark v Burda GmbH, formerly Burda
    Verlagsbeteiligungen GmbH)
  • 11 September 2008, Case C-11/07 (Hans Eckelkamp, Natalie Eckelkamp, Monica Eckelkamp,
    Saskia Eckelkamp, Thomas Eckelkamp, Jessica Eckelkamp, Joris Eckelkamp v Belgische Staat)
  • 11 September 2008, Case C-43/07 (D.M.M.A. Arens-Sikken v Staatssecretaris van Financiën)
  • 2 October 2008, Case C-360/06 (Heinrich Bauer Verlag BeteiligungsGmbH v Finanzamt für
    Großunternehmen in Hamburg)
  • 16 October 2008, Case C-527/06 (R.H.H. Renneberg v. Staatssecretaris van Financiën)
  • 23 October 2008, Case C-157/07 (Finanzamt für Körperschaften III in Berlin v Krankenheim
    Ruhesitz am Wannsee-Seniorenheimstatt GmbH)
  • 27 November 2008, Case C-418/07 (Société Papillon v Ministère du Budget, des Comptes publics et
    de la Fonction publique)
  • 4 December 2008, Case C-330/07 (Jobra Vermögensverwaltungs-Gesellschaft mbH v Finanzamt
    Amstetten Melk Scheibbs)
  • 11 December 2008, Case C-285/07 (A.T. v Finanzamt Stuttgart-Körperschaften)
  • 16 December 2008, Case C-210/06 (CARTESIO Oktató és Szolgáltató bt)
  • 22 December 2008, Case C-48/07 (État belge – Service public fédéral Finances v Les Vergers du
    Vieux Tauves SA)
  • 22 December 2008, Case C-282/07 (État belge – SPF Finances v Truck Center SA)
  • 22 January 2009, Case C-377/07 (Finanzamt Speyer-Germersheim v STEKO Industriemontage
  • 27 January 2009, Case C-318/07 (Hein Persche v Finanzamt Lüdenscheid)
  • 12 February 2009, Case C-138/07 (Belgische Staat v Cobelfret NV)
  • 12 February 2009, Case C-67/08 (Margarete Block v Finanzamt Kaufbeuren)
  • 23 April 2009, Case C-406/07 (Commission v Greece)
  • 23 April 2009, Case C-544/07 (Uwe Rüffler v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej we Wroclawiu Osrodek
    Zamiejscowy w Walbrzychu)
  • 4 June 2009, Case C-144/08 (Commission v Finland)
  • 4 June 2009, Joined Cases C-439/07 and C-499/07 (Belgische Staat v KBC Bank NV, and Beleggen,
    Risicokapitaal, Beheer NV v Belgische Staat)
  • 11 June 2009, Case C-429/07 (Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst v X BV)
  • 11 June 2009, Case C-521/07 (Commission v Netherlands)
  • 11 June 2009, Joined Cases C-155/08 and C-157/08 (X, E.H.A. Passenheim-van Schoot v
    Staatssecretaris van Financiën)
  • 18 June 2009, Case C-303/07 (Aberdeen Property Fininvest Alpha Oy)
  • 16 July 2009, Case C-128/08 (Damseaux v État belge)
  • 10 September 2009, Case C-269/07 (Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic
    of Germany)
  • 17 September 2009, Case C-182/08 (Glaxo Wellcome GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt München II)
  • 1 October 2009, Case C-569/07 (HSBC Holdings plc, Vidacos Nominees Ltd v The Commssioners of
    Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs)
  • 1 October 2009, Case C-247/08 (Gaz de France – Berliner Investissement SA v Bundeszentralamt
    für Steuern)
  • 1 October 2009, Case C-502/08 (Commission des Communautés européennes contre Royaume
  • 6 October 2009, Case C-562/07 (Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain)
  • 6 October 2009, Case C-153/08 (Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain)
  • 15 October 2009, Case C-35/08 (Grundstücksgemeinschaft Busley/Cibrian v Finanzamt StuttgartKörperschaften)
  • 12 November 2009, Case C-441/08 (Elektrownia Patnów II sp. zoo v Dyrektor Yzby Skarbowej w
  • 19 November 2009, Case C-314/08 (Krzysztof Filipiak v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Poznaniu)
  • 19 November 2009, Case C-540/07 (Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic)
  • 21 January 2010, Case C-311/08 (Société de Gestion Industrielle SA (SGI) v État belge)
  • 25 February 2010, Case C-172/08 (Pontina Ambiente Srl v Regione Lazio)
  • 25 February 2010, Case C-337/08 (X Holding BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën)
  • 18 March 2010, Case C-440/08 (F. Gielen v Staatssecretaris van Financiën)
  • 15 April 2010, Case C-96/08 (CIBA Speciality Chemicals Central and Eastern Europe Szolgáltató,
  • Tanácsadó és Keresdedelmi kft v Adó- és Pénzügyi ellenörzési Hivatal (APEH) Hatósági Föosztály)
  • 27 April 2010, Case C-510/08 (Vera Mattner v Finanzamt Velbert)
  • 20 May 2010, Case C-352/08 (Modehuis A. Zwijnenburg BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën)
  • 20 May 2010, Case C-56/09 (Emiliano Zanotti v Agenzia delle Entrate – Ufficio Roma 2)
  • 3 June 2010, Case C-487/08 (European Commission v Kingdom of Spain)
  • 17 June 2010, Case C-105/08 (European Commission v Portuguese Republic)
  • 24 June 2010, Joined Cases C-338/08 and C-339/08 (P. Ferrero e C. SpA v Agenzia delle Entrate –
    Ufficio di Alba [C-338/08] and General Beverage Europe BV v Agenzia delle Entrate – Ufficio di
    Torino 1 [C-338/08])
  • 1 July 2010, Case C-35/09 (Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v
    Paolo Speranza)
  • 1 July 2010, Case C-233/09 (Gerhard Dijkman, Maria Dijkman-Lavaleije v. Belgische Staat)
  • 15 July 2010, Case C-70/09 (Alexander Hengartner, Rudolf Gasser v Landesregierung Vorarlberg)
  • 28 October 2010, Case C-72/09 (Établissements Rimbaud SA v Directeur général des impôts,
    Directeur des services fiscaux d’Aix-en-Provence)
  • 20 January 2011, Case C-155/09 (European Commission v Hellenic Republic)
  • 10 February 2011, Joined Cases C-436/08 and C-437/08 (Haribo Lakritzen Hans Riegel
    BetriebsgmbH, Österreichische Salinen AG v Finanzamt Linz)
  • 10 February 2011, Case C-25/10 (Missionswerk Werner Heukelbach eV v État belge)
  • 31 March 2011, Case C-450/09 (Ulrich Schröder v Finanzamt Hameln)
  • 7 April 2011, Case C-20/09 (European Commission v Portuguese Republic)
  • 5 May 2011, Case C-267/09 (European Commission v Portuguese Republic)
  • 5 May 2011, Case C-384/09 (Prunus SARL, Polonium SA v Directeur des services fiscaux)
  • 16 June 2011, Case C-10/10 (European Commission v Republic of Austria)
  • 30 June 2011, Case C-262/09 (Meilicke II)
  • 21 July 2011, Case C-39709 (Scheuten Solar Technology GmbH v Finanzamt Gelsenkirchen-Süd)
  • 8 September 2011, joined cases C-78/08 to C-80/08 (Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze,
    Agenzia delle Entrate v Paint Graphos Soc. coop. arl [C-78/08], Adige Carni Soc. coop. arl, in
    liquidation, v Agenzia delle Entrate, Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze [C-79/08], and
    Ministero delle Finanze v Michele Franchetto [C-80/08]
  • 15 September 2011, Case C-310/09 (Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics et de la Fonction
    publique v Accor SA)
  • 15 September 2011, Case C-132/10 (Olivier Halley, Julie Halley, Marie Halley v Belgische Staat)
  • 15 September 2011, Case C-240/10 (Cathy Schulz-Delzers, Pascal Schulz v Finanzamt Stuttgart III)
  • 29 September 2011, Case C-387/10 (Commission v Austria)
  • 6 October 2011, Case C-493/09 (Commission v Portuguese Republic)
  • 13 October 2011, Case C-9/11 (Waypoint Aviation SA v État belge – SPF Finances)
  • 20 October 2011, Case C-284/09 (Commission v Federal Republic of Germany)
  • 10 November 2011, Case C-126/10 (Foggia – Sociedade Gestora de Participações Sociais SA v
    Secretário de Estado dos Assuntos Fiscais)
  • 29 November 2011, Case C-371/10 (National Grid Indus BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst
    Rijnmond / kantoor Rotterdam)
  • 1 December 2011, Case C-250/08 (European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium)
  • 1 December 2011, Case C-253/09 (European Commission v Republic of Hungary)
  • 8 December 2011, Case C-157/10 (Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria SA v Administración General
    del Estado)
  • 29 March 2012, Case C-417/10 (Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate v
    3M Italia SpA)
  • 10 May 2012,Case C-39/10 (European Commission v Republic of Estonia)
  • 10 May 2012, Joined Cases C-338/11 to C-347/11 (Santander Asset Management SGIIC SA, on
    behalf of FIM Santander Top 25 Euro Fi [C-338/11] v Directeur des résidents à l’étranger et des
    services généraux and Santander Asset Management SGIIC SA, on behalf of Cartera Mobiliaria
    SA SICAV [C-339/11], Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of Alltri Inka [C-340/11],
    Allianz Global Investors Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of DBI-Fonds APT n° 737
    [C-341/11], SICAV KBC Select Immo [C-342/11], SGSS Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft
    mbH [C-343/11], International Values Series of the DFA Investment Trust Co. [C-344/11],
    Continental Small Co. Series of the DFA Investment Trust Co. [C-345/11], SICAV GA Fund B
    [C-346/11], Generali Investments Deutschland Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, on behalf of
    AMB Generali Aktien Euroland [C-347/11] v Ministre du Budget, des Comptes publics, de la
    Fonction publique et de la Réforme de l’État)
  • 10 May 2012, Case C-370/11 (European Commission v. Kingdom of Belgium)
  • 5 July 2012, Case C-318/10 (Société d’investissement pour l’agriculture tropicale SA (SIAT) v État
  • 12 July 2012, Case C-269/09 (European Commission v Kingdom of Spain)
  • 12 July 2012, Case C-384/11 (Tate & Lyle Investments Ltd contre Belgische Staat)
  • 19 July 2012, Case C-31/11 (Marianne Scheunemann v Finanzamt Bremerhaven)
  • 19 July 2012, Case C-48/11 (Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö v A Oy)
  • 6 September 2012, Case C-38/10 (European Commission v Portuguese Republic)
  • 6 September 2012, Case C-18/11 (The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v
    Philips Electronics UK Ltd)
  • 6 September 2012, Case C-380/11(DI. VI. Finanziaria di Diego della Valle & C. SapA v
    Administration des contributions en matière d’impôts)
  • 19 septembre 2012, Case C-540/11(Daniel Levy, Carine Sebbag contre État belge)
  • 18 October 2012, Case C-498/10 (X NV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën)
  • 18 October 2012, Case C-603/10 (Pelati d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija)
  • 18 October 2012, Case C-371/11 (Punch Graphix Prepress Belgium NV v Belgische Staat)
  • 25 October 2012, Case C-387/11 (European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium)
  • 8 November 2012, Case C-342/10 (European Commission v Republic of Ireland)
  • 13 November 2012, Case C-35/11 (Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation v Commissioners of
    Inland Revenue, The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs)
  • 22 November 2012, Case C-600/10 (European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany)
  • 19 December 2012, Case C-207/11 (3D I Srl v Agenzia delle Finanze – Ufficio di Cremona)
  • 31 January 2013, Case C-301/11 (European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands)
  • 21 February 2013, Case C-123/11 (A Oy)
  • 28 February 2013, Case C-168/11 (Manfred Beker, Christa Beker v Finanzamt Heilbronn)
  • 28 February 2013, Case C-425/11 (Katja Ettwein v Finanzamt Konstanz)
  • 28 February 2013, Case C-544/11 (Helga Petersen, Peter Petersen v Finanzamt Ludwigshafen)
  • 25 April 2013, Case C-64/11 (European Commission v Kingdom of Spain)
  • 6 June 2013, Case C-383/10 (European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium)
  • 4 July 2013, Case C-350/11 (Argenta Spaarbank NV v Belgische Staat)
  • 18 July 2013, Case C-261/11 (Commission européenne contre Royaume de Danemark )
  • 18 July 2013, Case C-6/12 P (P Oy)
  • 3 October 2013, Case C-282/12 (Itelcar – Automóveis de Aluguer Lda v Fazenda Pública)
  • 17 October 2013, Case C-181/12 (Yvon Welte v Finanzamt Velbert)
  • 22 October 2013, Case C-276/12 (Jiří Sabou v Finanční ředitelství pro hlavní město Prahu)
  • 7 November 2013, Case C-322/11 (K)
  • 12 December 2013, Case C-303/12 (Guido Imfeld, Nathalie Garcet v État belge)
  • 12 December 2013, Case C-362/12 (Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group
    Litigation v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and
  • 23 January 2014, Case C-164/12 (DMC Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH v Finanzamt Hamburg-Mitte)
  • 23 January 2014, Case C-296/12 (European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium)
  • 14 February 2014, C-385/12 (Hervis Sport- és Divatkereskedelmi Kft. v Nemzeti Adó- és
    Vámhivatal Közép-dunántúli Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága)
  • 13 March 2014, Case C-375/12 (Margaretha Bouanich v Directeur des services fiscaux de la
  • 1 April 2014, Case C-80/12 (Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company Ltd, Savers Health and Beauty
    Ltd, Walton Container Terminal Ltd, WPCS (UK) Finance Ltd, AS Watson Card Services (UK)
    Ltd, Hutchison Whampoa (Europe) Ltd, Kruidvat UK Ltd, Superdrug Stores plc v The
    Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs)
  • 10 April 2014, Case C-190/12 (Emerging Markets Series of DFA Investment Trust Company v
    Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Bydgoszczy)
  • 5 June 2014, Joined Cases C-24/12 and C-27/12 (X BV (C-24/12), TBG Limited (C-27/12) v
    Staatssecretaris van Financiën)
  • 12 June 2014, Joined Cases C-39/13, C-40/13 and C-41/13 (Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/
    Noord/kantoor Groningen v SCA Group Holding BV (C-39/13), X AG, X1 Holding GmbH,
    X2 Holding GmbH, X3 Holding GmbH, D1 BV, D2 BV, D3 BV v Inspecteur van de
    Belastingdienst Amsterdam (C-40/13), and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Holland-Noord/
    kantoor Zaandam v MSA International Holdings BV, MSA Nederland BV (C-41/13))
  • 19 June 2014, Joined Cases C-53/13 and C-80/13 (Strojírny Prostějov a.s. (C-53/13) v Odvolací
    finanční ředitelství and ACO Industries Tábor s. r. o. (C-80/13) v Odvolací finanční ředitelství)
  • 17 July 2014, Case C-48/13 (Nordea Bank Danmark A/S v Skatteministeriet)

Last Tax Cases

  • 3/9/2014 , Case C-127/12 ( Comm v Spain )
  • 4/9/2014 , Case C-211/13 ( Comm v Germany )
  • 11/9/2014 , Case C-489/13 ( Verest and Gerards )
  • 11/9/2014 , Case C-47/12 ( Kronos International )
  • 9/10/2014 , Case C-326/12 ( Van Caster & Van Caster )
  • 22/10/2014 , Case C-344/13 & C-367/13 ( Blanco, Fabretti )
  • 13/11/2014 , Case C-112/14 ( Comm v United Kingdom )
  • 11/12/2014 , Case C-678/11 ( Comm v Spain )
  • 18/12/2014 , Case C-640/13 ( Comm v United Kingdom )
  • 18/12/2014 , Case C-87/13 ( X )
  • 18/12/2014 , Case C-133/13 ( Q )
  • 3/2/2015 , Case C-172/13 ( Comm v United Kingdom )
  • 24/2/2015 , Case C-512/13 ( Sopora )
  • 24/2/2015 , Case C-559/13 ( Grünewald )
  • 26/2/2015 , Case C-623/13 ( De Ruyter )
  • 16/4/2015 , Case C-591/13 ( Comm v Germany )
  • 21/5/2015 , Case C-657/13 ( Verder LabTec )
  • 21/5/2015 , Case C-560/13 ( Wagner-Raith )
  • 4/6/2015 , Case C-578/14 ( Argenta Spaarbank )
  • 10/6/2015 , Case C-686/13 ( X AB )
  • 18/6/2015 , Case C-9/14 ( Kieback )
  • 2/9/2015 , Case C-386/14 ( Groupe Steria )
  • 17/9/2015 , Case C-589/13 ( Privatstiftung Eisenstadt )
  • 17/9/2015 , Case C-10/14, C-14/14, C-17/14 ( Miljoen )
  • 6/10/2015 , Case C-66/14 ( Finanzamt Linz )
  • 29/10/2015 , Case C-589/14 ( Comm v Belgium )
  • 19/11/2015 , Case C-241/14 ( Bukovansky )
  • 19/11/2015 , Case C-632/13 ( Hirvonen )
  • 17/12/2015 , Case C-388/14 ( Timac Agro Deutschland )
  • 26/5/2016 , Case C-48/15 ( NN (L) )
  • 24/11/2016 , Case C-464/14 ( SECIL )
  • 2/6/2016 , Case C-252/14 ( Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek )
  • 14/4/2016 , Case C-522/14 ( Sparkasse Allgäu )
  • 8/6/2016 , Case C-479/14 ( Hünnebeck )
  • 13/7/2016 , Case C-18/15 ( Brisal )
  • 21/12/2016 , Case C-593/14 ( Masco Denmark and Damixa )
  • 21/12/2016 , Case C-503/14 ( Comm v Portugal )
  • 30/6/2016 , Case C-123/15 ( Feilen )
  • 30/6/2016 , Case C-176/15 ( Riskin and Timmermans )
  • 26/5/2016 , Case C-300/15 ( Kohll et Kohll-Schlesser )
  • 26/5/2016 , Case C-244/15 ( Comm v Greece )
  • 9/2/2017 , Case C-283/15 ( X )
  • 21/9/2016 , Case C-478/15 ( Radgen )
  • 8/3/2017 , Case C-448/15 ( Wereldhave Belgium )
  • 8/3/2017 , Case C-14/16 ( Euro Park Service )
  • 15/2/2017 , Case C-317/15 ( X )

Note: ECJ Judgments and Conclusions of the Advocate General are given in English; in cases where the English version was not available, the French version is given.

Dictionary of Foreign Policy Wed, 22 Feb 2017 15:05:16 +0000 Dictionary of Foreign Policy

The dictionary explains the concepts and historical trends that have guided and influenced many nations foreign policy throughout their history.

The dictionary discuss concepts and doctrines, policymaking, commerce and science, human rights and arms control, with specific articles on topics ranging from…

]]> 1
The International Political Dictionary Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:29:20 +0000 The International Political Dictionary

The International Political Dictionary provides a comprehensive and jargon-free introduction to the international political science’s basic concepts and themes.

The text is arranged by topic with a glossary to find terms instead of having all the entries arranged in alphabetical order.

Appropriate as a supplement in the introductory course in political science and international and foreign government. This dictionary could also supplement various texts in such courses as Legislative Process, The American Executive, Constitutional Law, and Foreign Policy.


The United States Constitution and the Federal Union
Important Gases
Important Statutes

Parties, Politics, Pressure Groups, and Elections
Important Cases
Important Statutes

The Legislative Process: Congress and the State Legislatures
Important Agencies
Important Cases
Important Statutes

The Executive: Office and Powers
Important Agencies
Important Cases

Public Administration: Organization and Personnel
Important Agencies
Important Cases
Important Statutes

The Judicial Process: Courts and Law Enforcement
Important Agencies
Important Cases
Important Statutes

Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, Immigration, and Citizenship
Important Agencies
Important Cases
Important Statutes

Finance and Taxation
Important Agencies
Important Cases
Important Statutes

Business and Labor
Important Agencies
Important Cases
Important Statutes

Agriculture, Energy, and Environment
Important Agencies
Important Cases
Important Statutes

Health, Education, and Welfare
Important Agencies
Important Cases
Important Statutes

Foreign Policy and National Defense
Important Agencies
Important Cases
Important Statutes

State and Local Government
Important Agencies

]]> 3
Capital Duty Directive Tue, 24 Mar 2015 18:09:52 +0000 Capital Duty Directive



The European Commission proposed at the end of 2006 to abolish capital duty on the raising of capital. Specifically, the Commission proposed a phasing out of capital duty by 2010 in order to support the development of EU companies. Capital duty is an indirect tax levied on contributions of capital for capital companies and restructuring operations involving capital companies. Given its detrimental economic effects to promote entrepreneurship and capitalization of companies, it was viewed as an obstacle to economic growth. Abolishing capital duty was also in line with the EU Commission strategy to create more jobs and growth and it exercise for “better regulations”. At the end of 2006, only 7 (Greece, Spain, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Austria, Poland and Portugal) of the current 27 Member States continud to levy it.The purpose of the proposal was, together with the abolishion of  capital duty, to reinforce the prohibition on creating or levying other similar taxes.

The proposal gave a phasing out in two steps. It proposed a limit of 0,5 % on the rate of capital duty by 2008 and a phasing out of all capital duty by 2010. The duty capital Directive ensured that restructuring operations, as well as transfers of companies between Member States, shall not be subject to capital duty.

The proposal also intended to simplify a rather complicated piece of Community legislation. On 1 October, the European Court of Justice (the “ECJ”) held that the capital duty directive (the “Directive”) must be interpreted as prohibiting the levying of a duty, such as stamp duty reserve tax, on the issue of shares into a clearance system (see later).


Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 regulates the levying of indirect taxes on the raising of capital. When adopted in 1969, the aim of the Directive was, in line with the purpose of promoting the free movement of capital to harmonise the taxes on the raising of capital, with regard to both their structures and rates; and prevent Member States from creating or levying other similar taxes.

This led to the imposition of a mandatory capital duty, which is optional, and the abolition of other indirect taxes on the raising of capital. In particular, Article 11 of the Directive prohibitedat EU level taxes on the intra-EU issue of securities, whereas Article 12 permitted duties on the transfers of securities. The UK introduced a 1% capital duty, in accordance with the Directive, when it joined the then EEC in 1973.

Following the last amendment to the Directive in 1985, Member States had the option not to levy a capital duty at all or to charge duty on the transactions falling within the scope of the Directive at a single rate not exceeding 1%.

Developments in the Member States

Since 1985, the trend has been towards an elimination of capital duty in Member States.  Because of the increasingly mobility of capital, some Member States either never set up a taxation of capital regimen (like Sweden) or abolished (or repealed) such regimen.

In 1988, the UK chose to exercise its option to repeal capital duty. SDRT was introduced in 1986 to ensure that the UK Exchequer did not lose out on stamp duty as a result of the move to electronic trading of securities. The lack of an instrument meant that stamp duty did not apply. At the same time the 1.5% charge on issue to a clearance service was introduced to address the perceived difficulty of collecting tax on transfers within a clearance service. The UK’s justification for the charge is that it is, in substance, a charge on transfers levied in advance.

In 2006, only 7  Member States (Greece, Spain, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Austria, Poland and Portugal) continud to levy it. Bulgaria and Romania did not levy it either.

Following the general approach agreed on 4 December 2007, pending the opinion of the European Parliament, the ECOFIN Council adopted a recast of Directive 69/335 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital. This recast simplified the legislation and ensures that restructuring operations shall not be subject to capital duty.

The recast was part of the Commission’s “Better Regulation” exercise. It clarifies and simplifies the Directive in view of the problems that arose from its interpretation. The recast Directive:

  • changes radically the structure of the Directive in order to reflect past amendments, with the ultimate aim of abolishing capital duty but with concessions due to the revenue losses this would imply,
  • covers both restructuring operations that involve an increase in capital and restructuring operations that do not. The latter previously fell outside the scope of the Directive,
  • gives provisions that apply equally to restructuring operations affected by contributions of assets and by exchange of shares; both types of restructuring operations are henceforth exempt from capital duty,
  • ensures that the transfer of a capital company between Member States shall be exempt from capital duty.

Case C-569/07

On 1 October 2009, the European Court of Justice released its judgment in Case C-569/07 HSBC Holdings Ltd and Vidacos Nominees v The Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs. In the light of the ruling HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) accepts that Article 11(a) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (now Council Directive 2008/7/EC) (‘the EC Capital Directive’), must be interpreted as meaning that it prohibits the levying of a duty such as the charge to SDRT imposed by section 96 Finance Act 1986 on the issue of shares into a Community clearance service.

The case involved the acquisition in 2000 by HSBC of the CCF group, a French public banking company, in consideration for the issue of HSBC shares to CCF shareholders. To obtain a listing on the French Bourse, to make it attractive for French shareholders, it was required for CCF to issue its shares to Vidacos Nominees Ltd as UK agency (nominee) of Sicovam, the French clearance service operator. Clareance services are designed to facilitate the trading and settlement of securities.

On 18 March 2009 Advocate General Mengozzi delivered a non-binding opinion (this procedure is typical for ECJ tax cases)  in favour of HSBC on the basis that the charge was contrary to Article 11 of the Directive on Indirect Taxes on the Raising of Capital prohibiting the imposition of taxes on the issue of securities by a company, and Article 56 of the EC Treaty prohibiting restrictions on the freedom of movement of capital.

The ruling was therefore that the levying of a duty, such as the charge to SDRT, on the issue of shares into a Community clearance service is prohibited. Despite the opinion given by the Advocate General , there was no ruling on Article 56 of the Treaty, prohibiting restrictions on the freedom of movement of capital. This means that only SDRT on issues has been ruled to be in breach, but not SDRT on transfers.

This said, however, the ECJ followed the AG’s opinion and Commission v Belgium that the initial acquisition of a newly issued security is part of the same transaction as the issue of that security. This means that if the issuing company offers subscribers a choice between receiving certificated securities (no SDRT because this is a direct issue) or receiving securities through a clearance service, which requires transfer of the newly issued securities to the clearance service operator or deposit-taker, the latter position is no different and should be treated as an issue, protected by the Capital Duty Directive, and not excluded as a separate transfer.

As Sicovam had not made an election for alternative treatment, this transaction attracted a charge (a “entry ticket”) to stamp duty reserve tax (“SDRT”) at 1.5% of the value of the shares (Section 96(1) of the Finance Act 1986), which was typically borne by the issuer. Subsequent transfers between clearance services and DRS were exempt from SDRT.  This is described as the “season ticket” charge because once paid, transfers of the HSBC shares within the clearance service (like Euroclear and Clearstream) were free from SDRT, which would otherwise be payable
at the rate of 0.5% on each transfer. The charge fell on Vidacos but was met by HSBC. The proceedings
came about because HSBC claimed for repayment of the SDRT and appealed to the Special
Commissioners (a former UK tax tribunal) when HMRC refused.

Consequences of the Judgment

In their  response to the judgment, HMRC determined that, with immediate effect, they will
not seek to apply a 1.5% SDRT [charge] on the issue of shares into a clearance service within the EU.

It is unclear if the judgment must also apply to the similar charge on issue to a nominee on behalf of a depositary receipt system. In fact, HMRC invited statutory claims for repayment under Regulation 14 of the Stamp Duty Reserve Tax Regulations 1986 (‘the SDRT Regulations’) from persons who pursuant to sections 93 or 96 Finance Act 1986 have paid SDRT pursuant to the issue of shares in a United Kingdom incorporated company to a depositary receipt issuer or a clearance service located within the European Union.

Since the use of a depositary receipt system is common in allowing companies to access the United States capital markets, is whether the consequences of the case C-569/07 (see later) are limited to clearance services and depositary receipt systems within the European Union as HMRC seem to be suggesting. However it is certain that the Directive is not limited in this sense, and seems it was focused on creating a level playing field, in terms of taxation on capital raising, from whatever source, by European Union companies.

It is “thought that it should be open to an issuer to contest any charge by an EU Member State of which it has borne or will bear the economic burden, even where the clearance service or depositary receipt system and the
intended investors are not within the EU. This is not altogether beyond doubt and the analysis may be
affected by details such as the location of the nominee.” While HMRC have limited their response to the issue of shares, they think that ” it would also apply to other types of security, should they attract the charge (the charge is limited to marketable securities ( Section 125 of the Finance Act 2003 and Section 99 (5)(b) of the Finance Act 1986) and does not apply to most types of loan capital; Sections 97(4) and 99(5)(b) of the Finance Act 1986). This is borne out by the wording of the Directive.

Finally, the judgment also raises the question whether the UK can continue to impose 1.5% bearer instrument duty on the issue of certain bearer securities. Advice should be sought before disregarding a charge which otherwise seems to apply under UK domestic law unless it clearly falls into the ambit of the HMRC statement.”

In the opinion of an observer, the ECJ take the option to “limit itself to a consideration of the Directive, finding that where a harmonising directive applied, it was not open to the court to consider the issue in light of the general application of the fundamental freedoms as the Advocate General had done. As a result of this, it is difficult to find justification in the judgment on which to base an argument either that the similar 1.5% charge that the UK imposes on a transfer of securities to a clearance service or depositary receipt system, or that the charge that the UK levies on the transfer between non-UK persons of securities issued by a UK issuer, is in
breach of European law. Some support for both propositions could be found in the Advocate General’s

Topics Covered

The many tax areas covered in this eBook include, but are not limited to:

Defensa Tue, 18 Nov 2014 09:48:26 +0000 para el TEDH la previsión del Derecho francés de un órgano autorregulador propio de la profesión jurídica, que actúa a modo de filtro entre los letrados y la UIF, resulta decisiva para admitir la legitimidad de la intromisión en el derecho a la privacidad que el deber de comunicar las operaciones sospechas puede suponer.

Tales órganos colegiados son los que primeramente reciben las comunicaciones de los abogados por operaciones sospechosas y quienes, después de una valoración de la procedencia de la comunicación, envían efectivamente la información a la UIF francesa (Tracfin). Con ello, el legislador francés se acoge a la posibilidad que brinda el art. 23 de la Tercera Directiva de “designar al organismo autorregulador pertinente de la profesión de que se trate como la autoridad a la que se ha de informar en primera instancia en lugar de la UIF”. Con ello, como expresamente señala el TEDH, el legislador francés ha dispuesto un “filtro que protege el privilegio profesional”,64 pues tales órganos autorregulados, en la medida en que permiten un segundo juicio de valoración a cargo de abogados expertos en la materia, suponen una importante “garantía en aras de proteger el privilegio de la profesión jurídica”.65

Sin embargo, resulta que en España … y a diferencia de lo que acontece con los notarios, sujetos obligados igualmente por la Ley 10/2010 y que desde el año 2005 disponen de su propio “Órgano Centralizado de Prevención en el Consejo General del Notariado”,66 sigue sin existir un órgano vinculado al Consejo General de la Abogacía o a los distintos Colegios territoriales que se encargue de llevar a cabo esa función de intermediación entre los abogados y el Sepblac. El art. 27 de la Ley 10/2010, explícitamente prevé tal posibilidad, señalando que la constitución de tales órganos deberá formalizarse mediante Orden del Ministro de Economía y Hacienda y “tendrán por función la intensificación y canalización de la colaboración de las profesiones colegiadas con las autoridades judiciales, policiales y administrativas responsables de la prevención y represión del blanqueo de capitales y de la financiación del terrorismo, sin perjuicio de la responsabilidad directa de los profesionales incorporados como sujetos obligados”. Asimismo, el art. 27.2 de dicha ley establece que “de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 21, los profesionales incorporados facilitarán toda la documentación e información que la Comisión de Prevención del Blanqueo de Capitales e Infracciones Monetarias o sus órganos de apoyo les requieran, directamente o por intermedio del órgano centralizado de prevención, para el ejercicio de sus competencias”.

En “El abogado frente al blanqueo de capitales ¿Entre Escila y Caribdis?.Comentario a la sentencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos de 6 de diciembre de 2012 (TEDH 12323/11) Caso Michaud contra Francia”(2013), de Ivó Coca Vila, de la Universitat Pompeu Fabra, escribe:

“Tanto en las operaciones de la letra ñ) como en las de la letra o), y con la excepción mencionada, los abogados que en ellas participan, no actúan en cuanto que abogados, sino más bien, como mandatarios o agentes de su principal, al que llamamos de forma impropia cliente.
b) El asesoramiento de operaciones por cuenta de clientes relativas a la compraventa de bienes inmuebles o entidades comerciales”


“De conformidad con lo dicho hasta ahora, en virtud del art. 2 de la Ley 10/2010, el abogado sobre el que puede recaer el deber penal de reserva del art. 199.2 CP únicamente está obligado por la Ley 10/2010 cuando participe en el asesoramiento de operaciones por cuenta de clientes relativas a la compraventa de bienes inmuebles o entidades comerciales.

Solo aquí, en principio, pareciera posible afirmar la existencia de una colisión de deberes penalmente relevante. Sin embargo, la propia Ley 10/2010, en su art. 22, establece que aun cuando el abogado por razón de su actividad se halle obligado en virtud del art. 2, éste no estará sujeto a las obligaciones establecidas en los arts. 7.3, 18 y 21, esto es, no quedará obligado ni a comunicar el indicio o certeza de la operación vinculada al blanqueo de capitales (art. 18), ni a colaborar con la Comisión de Prevención de Blanqueo de Capitales (CPBC) facilitando documentación o información (art. 21), “con respecto a la información que reciban de uno de sus clientes u obtengan sobre él al determinar la posición jurídica en favor de su cliente o desempeñar su misión de defender a dicho cliente en procesos judiciales o en relación con ellos, incluido el asesoramiento sobre la incoación o la forma de evitar un proceso, independientemente de si han recibido u obtenido dicha información antes, durante o después de tales procesos. Sin perjuicio de lo establecido en la presente Ley, los abogados guardarán el deber de secreto profesional de conformidad con la legislación vigente.” Es decir, la propia Ley, en el art. 22, excluye los dos deberes que efectivamente pueden entrar en conflicto directo con el de reserva del secreto profesional, esto es, el deber de comunicar operaciones sospechosas y el deber de colaborar con la CPBC, siempre y cuando el abogado adquiera ese conocimiento al determinar la posición jurídica en favor de su cliente o desempeñar la misión de defensa en procesos judiciales o en relación con ellos. Habiendo excluido como hemos hecho el deber de reserva del secreto profesional conforme al 199.2 CP cuando el abogado se dedica a la intermediación o gestión de intereses de su cliente, resulta que, incluso cuando participe en el asesoramiento de operaciones por cuenta de clientes relativas a la compraventa de bienes inmuebles o entidades comerciales, puede quedar, conforme al art. 22 Ley 10/2010 eximido tanto del deber de notificar al Sepblac la sospecha o evidencia de blanqueo de capitales, como del de colaborar con la CPBC. Así las cosas, resulta ineludible aclarar qué significa “defender en procesos judiciales o en relación con ellos”, pero sobre todo, a qué se refiere el legislador con la expresión “determinar la posición jurídica en favor de su cliente”. Solo entonces estaremos en disposición de decidir si el abogado que participa en el asesoramiento de operaciones por cuenta de clientes relativas a la compraventa de bienes inmuebles o entidades comerciales puede realmente verse inmerso en una situación de colisión de deberes.”


Es cooperador necesario aquel que realiza un acto sin el cual el autor no podría haber cometido el delito, y es cómplice el que coopera igualmente con el autor, aunque su intervención no sea decisiva para la comisión del delito. Pero en ambos casos, cooperador necesario y cómplice, la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Supremo viene exigiendo un elemento subjetivo: el conocimiento del plan criminal del autor.

Ninguno de los indicios que aparecen relacionados en el auto del juez apunta a un conocimiento concreto, por parte de mi cliente, de que el Instituto Nóos estuviese obteniendo contratos al margen de la legalidad.

Debt collection and bankruptcy: A global perspective Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:57:20 +0000 Debt collection and bankruptcy: A global perspective

The global economic machinery runs on the support of credit. People are inherently dependent on credit to finance their all their daily endeavors. The dependence on credit for every material needs has given birth to various other financial subsidiaries like insurance, mortgage, stocks, loans and so on. Sometimes, people invest in stocks or take out mortgage loans but make terrible financial mistakes. As a result, they get into debt problems. These debtors often opt for bankruptcy as one of the best debt solutions to quash all their financial obligations. This gives them an opportunity to start afresh.

The objective of this article, however, is to let people know of these financial subjects – debt collection and bankruptcy on a keeping global perspective in mind.

International debt collection laws

There are innumerous reports of debt collection abuse that are increasing every passing day. The governments in the world have executed preventive laws to protect the debtors from the harassment of debt collectors and curb the menace.

As per the amended federal debt collection law (Fair Debt Collection Practices Act) enacted in the US, debt collectors are prohibited to employ conciliatory and unscrupulous tricks to coerce debtors to make the payments. The debt collectors cannot insult a debtor publicly. They are also barred from making incessant collection calls that may disrupt a debtor’s personal well-being and day-to-day activities. It is regulated by the Federal Trade Commission.

The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission have made some laws that say debt collectors cannot make more than 3 collection calls to a single debtor in a week. Moreover, debt collectors cannot bar a debtor from registering complaints against them. Debt collectors cannot harass any physically challenged debtor to get their money back.

In the UK, debt collectors hire bailiffs to do the collection on their behalf. According to the guidelines issued by the Office of Fair Trading (mentioned under the Consumer Credit Act 1974), bailiffs cannot enter a debtor’s residence without prior approval from the court and cannot confiscate his/her essential assets like household items, clothes and so on, as a compensation for the loan. The law demarcates the role of both the debt collectors and bailiffs.

International bankruptcy laws

Conventionally, financial experts of the US believed that mounting household bills, credit card dues and medical costs were the root cause for increased bankruptcy filings. However, after studying the macroeconomic variables, the actual reason came to light. Take for example, the number of bankrupt individuals grew enormously post-Great Depression era. Financial experts said that U.S Bankruptcy Code of 1978 were pro-consumers that fanned the rise in bankruptcy filings. This is because the law discharged a debtor’s unsecured debts and gave him a fresh opportunity to re-build his finances.

After the 2 consecutive natural calamities that rocked Japan on 11th March 2011, there is a sharp increase in number families going bankrupt. Even start-up enterprises are performing badly. The help and support of the Japanese government are not of much help. There are 3 fold increments in bankruptcy filings since the last fiscal year of 2011. According to the corporate bankruptcy specialist Teikoku Data Bank, the number of bankruptcy filed in 2011 is the highest since the Hanshin-Awaji earthquake of 1995.

Japanese bankruptcy law permits a company to carry-on with its usual business while going through a bankruptcy proceeding. Bankruptcy Code, Civil Reconstruction Code and Corporate Reorganization Code are most widely used by insolvent companies. In these laws, both the creditors as well as debtors can file their petition. However, creditors do file bankruptcy cases to liquidate a debtor’s assets in order to get their loan money back.

Both debt collection and bankruptcy are related in terms of debt. People need thorough money management counseling to avoid falling into the trap of debt. People should know that debt solutions which are offered to them do not help them in the long run. Therefore, every person should follow a disciplined financial regime that will give them a peaceful life and assist the government’s initiative to stabilize the local economy.

Responsabilidad del administrador por los acuerdos Wed, 09 May 2012 20:25:18 +0000 España: Responsabilidad del administrador por los acuerdos adoptados

El artículo 237 del Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2010, que aprueba la
Ley de sociedades de capital, coincidente con el texto del artículo 133 del
Real Decreto Legislativo 1564/1989, de 22 diciembre, que aprueba el Texto
Refundido de la Ley de Sociedades Anónimas, establece la responsabilidad de
los miembros del consejo de administración de la sociedad por los acuerdos
adoptados, excluyéndola solo en el caso de que desconocieran la existencia
del acto lesivo o, conociéndola hubieran hecho todo lo conveniente para
evitar el daño, o, en otro caso, se hubieran opuesto a él; se entiende, si
carecieran de facultades para evitarlo.
En consonancia con esta previsión legal expresa, no existe ninguna
razón de peso para excluir la responsabilidad penal del superior que conoce la
ejecución del acto antijurídico del inferior, cometido, tanto dentro del ámbito
de las funciones de este último como de las facultades de supervisión del
superior, y, pudiendo hacerlo, no ejerce sus facultades de control o no actúa
para evitarlo. O dicho con otras palabras, elige permanecer pasivo sin requerir
más información y sin ejercer sus facultades superiores.

En la STS nº 234/2010, de 11 de marzo, en la que se citaba la STS nº 257/2009 sobre la responsabilidad por omisión en estructuras organizadas, se
advertía que “…las actividades peligrosas pueden exigir de los superiores una
mayor vigilancia respecto al cumplimiento de las normas y de las órdenes
emitidas para evitar el daño manteniendo el riesgo dentro de los límites
permitidos, que aquellas otras que ordinariamente no son creadoras de riesgo
para intereses ajenos. Aun en estos casos puede establecerse una excepción
cuando existan datos que indiquen al superior un incremento del peligro que
lo sitúe en el marco de lo no permitido”. Es decir, que aun cuando se tratara
de actividades o actuaciones que ordinariamente no generan peligro para
terceros, si en el caso concreto el directivo conoce la existencia del riesgo
generado y la alta probabilidad de que supere el límite del jurídicamente
permitido, no puede escudarse en la pasividad para salvar su responsabilidad.
Por lo tanto, el directivo que dispone de datos suficientes para saber
que la conducta de sus subordinados, ejecutada en el ámbito de sus funciones
y en el marco de su poder de dirección, crea un riesgo jurídicamente
desaprobado, es responsable por omisión si no ejerce las facultades de control
que le corresponden sobre el subordinado y su actividad, o no actúa para
Debe aceptarse que el Presidente de
una gran multinacional no controla ordinariamente todas las querellas que se
presentan en nombre de aquella. Pero si llegara a su conocimiento,
especialmente, a través de quien ocupa en la
organización de la empresa una posición subordinada a la suya, no puede
refugiarse en la inacción y salvar al mismo tiempo su responsabilidad por los
hechos cometidos.

España: Responsabilidad del administrador por los acuerdos adoptados

Delito de deslealtad profesional en España 

Delito de deslealtad profesional en España DESLEALTAD PROFESIONAL: El delito de deslealtad profesional viene definido en el artículo 467.1 del Código Penal que sanciona al “abogadooprocuradorque,habiendoasesoradootomadoladefensa o representación de alguna persona, sin el consentimiento de ésta defienda o representeen elmismoasunto a quientengainteresescontrarios”. Tanto el Ministerio fiscal como la Acusación Particular imputan este delito …

Delito de Fraude en Derecho español 

Delito de Fraude en Derecho español El delito de fraude viene definido en el artículo 436 del Código Penal que sanciona a “la autoridad o funcionario público que, interviniendo por razón de su cargo en cualesquiera de los actos de las modalidades de contratación pública o en liquidaciones de efectos  o …

Delito Societario en España 

DELITO SOCIETARIO: Delito Societario en España El delito de administración desleal o fraudulenta viene definido en el artículo 295 del Código Penal que sanciona a “los administradores de hecho o de derecho o los socios de cualquier sociedad constituida o en formación, que en beneficio propio o de un tercero, con abuso …


Directiva 2005/19/CE del Consejo de 17 de febrero de 2005 por la que se modifica la Directiva 90/434/CEE, relativa al régimen fiscal común aplicable a las fusiones, escisiones, aportaciones de activos y canjes de acciones realizados entre sociedades de diferentes Estados miembros EL CONSEJO DE LA UNIÓN EUROPEA, Visto el Tratado constitutivo …