On 24 October 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) delivered the judgement in the joined cases of IN and Belgische Staat concerning the usage of evidence for VAT assessment, right to respect for private life and application of Charter.
Summary of the facts
The facts pertaining to the two disputes are, mutatis mutandis, identical in Cases C‑469/18 and C‑470/18.
The appellants are managing directors of undertakings trading and distributing computers and computer parts. Those undertakings were the subject of a criminal investigation following a complaint by the Belgian tax authorities who had started investigations into value added tax (‘VAT’) carousel fraud. As part of the criminal investigation, a letter rogatory was executed in Luxembourg in connection with which the director of a Luxembourg bank handed over the banking documents concerning the appellants, however, without an approval from the pre-trial division of the District Court (Chambre du conseil of the tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg, Luxembourg) required under Article 20 of the Treaty on Extradition and Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the Kingdom of Belgium, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Having obtained authorisation to consult the case file in the criminal proceedings, the Belgian tax authorities issued notices of assessment adjusting the personal income tax returns submitted by the appellants and ordering the payment of tax on profit from industrial and commercial undertakings, which had been paid to a Luxembourg account.
After the complaints brought against those notices of assessment by the appellants were rejected, those individuals brought actions seeking an exemption from the tax imposed on them, claiming that the banking documents had been improperly obtained and therefore could not be used as the basis for a tax decision. Those actions were upheld by a judgment of the court of first instance which was overturned on appeal. The appellants then brought appeals in cassation before the Court of Cassation (Hof van Cassatie, Belgium).
Questions referred to the ECJ
Should Article 47 of the Charter …, in cases of [VAT], be interpreted as precluding in all circumstances the use of evidence obtained in violation of the right to respect for private life as guaranteed by Article 7 of the Charter, or does it leave room for a national regulation under which the court which has to decide whether such a piece of evidence can be used as the basis for a VAT assessment has to make an evaluation such as the one set out [in the grounds of the request for a preliminary ruling]?
Conclusion by the ECJ
Since these proceedings are a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
The Court upheld that the requests for a preliminary ruling made by the Hof van Cassatie (Court of Cassation, Belgium) by decisions of 28 June 2018 are inadmissible.
For more information on this case, please contact:
Franco Falzon C.P.A. LL.M
T: +356 2010 7771 (office)
M: +356 9989 5679 (mobile)
While FF International Limited (hereinafter referred to as “FFI”) endeavours to ensure that any information published in articles / publications / memos / updates (including any information published on our website) is accurate as at the time of publication, FFI nor any of their respective directors, partners, officers, employees, or agents make any representation or warranty (express or implied) or accept or will accept any responsibility or liability in relation to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained published in our articles / publications / memos / updates (including any information published on our website) or any other written or oral information made available or published on our articles / publications / memos and updates. Any responsibility or liability in respect of any such information or any inaccuracy or omission arising from any article / publication / memo is expressly disclaimed. In particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, no representation or warranty is given as to the achievement or reasonableness of any future projections, estimates, prospects or returns published on our articles / publications / memos / updates (including any information published on our website) . The content of the above article / publication / memo / update and any information published on our website is intended to serve solely as general information only and its purpose is not to provide any specific professional advice whether of a financial, legal, tax or other nature. Since it is recommended that business decisions be based only on qualified professional advice, neither FFI nor any related company belonging to FFI nor any of the respective directors, partners, officers, employees, or agents of FFI will be held liable for any damages which might result as a consequence of relying on the information contained within. FFI including any directors, partners, officers, employees, or agents of FFI and / or any entity related to FFI accept no liability whatsoever for the content of this article / publication / memo / update for the consequences of any actions taken on the basis of the information provided. If you have any questions relating to the accuracy and correctness of the above article / publication / memo / updates or any information published on our website you are kindly requested inform us by sending us an email on email@example.com