Päring

Saatja: Webdesktop <[email protected]>

Saadetud: 30.04.2025 12:30

Adressaat: <"Virge Aasa">; <"vana RAM Info">

Koopia: <"[email protected]">; <=?utf-8?Q?Martin_J=C3=B5gi?=>;

<[email protected]>

Teema: Webdesktop: EU Pilot päring EUP(2025)10870

Reg. number: 15.3-5/2743Reg. kuupäev: 30.04.2025ASUTUSESISESEKS

KASUTAMISEKS Märge tehtud: 30.04.2025Juurdepääsupiirang kehtib kuni

menetluse lõpuni Alus: AvTS § 35 lg 1 p 3Teabevaldaja:

VälisministeeriumTereEdastame Euroopa Komisjonilt EU Pilot andmebaasi

kaudu tulnud päringu EUP(2025)10870, mis puudutab ulatust, milles võib

kasutada kuuenda maksustamisalase halduskoostöö direktiivi (DAC6) artikli

8ab lõikes 5 sätestatud õigust loobuda teabe esitamisest kutsesaladuse

hoidmise kohustuse tõttu.Ootame teie vastust hiljemalt 27.06.2025

aadressile [email protected] manuses.LugupidamisegaKatre

JaaksonEiõ Lguse bürooVä[email protected]:

Justiits- ja Digiministeerium*** TÄHELEPANU *** See e-kiri (kaasa õeta atud

manused) on mõedldl ainult e-kirja adressaatidele ning võib sisaldada

ametialaseks kasutamiseks ettenähtud teavet. Teavet ei tohi ilma saatja

selgelt väljendatud loata edasi saata ega mistahes viisil kõrvalistele

isikutele avaldada. Juhul, kui Te olete saanud käesoleva e-kirja eksituse

tõttu, palun teavitage sellest kohe saatjat ning kustutage e-kiri oma

arvutist.*** ATTENTION *** This e-mail and its attachments may contain

official information. If you are not the intended recipient, please

notify the sender immediately, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies.

Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the

intended recipient is unauthorized and may be unlawful.

Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 Büroo: SPA 3 6/86 – Telefon otsevalimisel: +32 229-65452

EUROOPA KOMISJON MAKSUNDUSE JA TOLLILIIDU PEADIREKTORAAT Otsene maksustamine, maksude koordineerimine, majandusanalüüs ja hindamine Õigustalitus: otsene maksustamine

Brüssel, 29/04/2025

EU Pilot 10870/25/TAXU

EU Pilot 10870/25/TAXU

Teema: Ulatus, milles võib kasutada kuuenda maksustamisalase

halduskoostöö direktiivi (DAC6) artikli 8ab lõikes 5 sätestatud õigust

loobuda teabe esitamisest kutsesaladuse hoidmise kohustuse tõttu

Komisjoni talitused soovivad täpsustust teabe esitamisest loobumise õiguse kohaldamise

ulatuse kohta Eesti õigusaktides, millega võetakse üle halduskoostöö direktiivi artikli 8ab

lõige 5 (mis kehtestati direktiiviga (EL) 2018/822 ja mida hiljem muudeti direktiiviga

(EL) 2023/2226). Käesolevat teabenõuet tuleks vaadelda Euroopa Liidu Kohtu poolt 29.

juulil 2024 kohtuasjas C-623/22 tehtud otsuse taustal. Teabenõude eesmärk on saada

parem arusaam sellest, kas liikmesriikide kehtivad õigusaktid, millega võeti üle

maksustamisalase halduskoostöö direktiivi artikli 8ab lõige 5, kajastavad piisavalt

Euroopa Liidu Kohtu praktikat, et tagada horisontaalsed võrdsed tingimused ja piiriüleste

skeemide kohta teabe esitamisest loobumise õiguse ühetaoline kohaldamine kõigis

liikmesriikides.

1. Asjassepuutuvad ELi õigusaktid ja vastav kohtupraktika

Direktiivi 2011/16/EL (maksustamisalase halduskoostöö kohta, muudetud nõukogu 17.

oktoobri 2023. aasta direktiiviga (EL) 2023/2226) artikli 8ab lõige 5:

„5. Iga liikmesriik võib võtta vajalikke meetmeid, et anda vahendajatele õigus loobuda

aruantava piiriülese skeemi kohta teabe esitamisest, kui aruandluskohustus võib olla

vastuolus selle liikmesriigi õiguse kohase kutsesaladuse hoidmise kohustusega. Sellisel

juhul võtab iga liikmesriik vajalikud meetmed, millega nõutakse, et vahendajad teataksid

viivitamata mis tahes muudest vahendajatest, või kui selliseid vahendajaid ei ole, siis

teavitataks maksumaksjat tema lõike 6 kohasest aruandluskohustusest.

Vahendajatele võib anda esimese lõigu kohase loobumisõiguse üksnes sellises ulatuses,

milles nad tegutsevad nende kutseala reguleerivate asjaomaste siseriiklike õigusnormide

kohaldamisalas.“

Euroopa Liidu Kohus tegi kuuenda maksustamisalase halduskoostöö direktiivi (DAC6)

vaatlusaluse sätte kohta otsuse kohtuasjas C-623/22: Belgian Association of Tax Lawyers

jt. Euroopa Liidu Kohtu otsuse saab kokku võtta järgmiselt.

Esiteks arutas kohus kutsesaladuse hoidmise kohustuse tõttu teabe esitamisest

loobumise õiguse kohaldamise ulatust. Kohus täheldas erisusi DAC6 keeleversioonides

(otsuse punktid 95–97) ja kutsesaladuse erinevat tõlgendamist liikmesriikides. Seetõttu

käsitles kohus DAC6 eesmärki (punkt 98), ettevalmistavat tööd OECD tasandil (punktid

2

100–104) ning vajadust kohaldada õigusnorme ühetaoliselt ja tagada kõigis

liikmesriikides võrdsed tingimused (punkt 107).

Sellest tulenevalt tõlgendas Euroopa Liidu Kohus mõistet „kutsesaladus“ nii, et see

hõlmab juhtumeid, kus kutsesaladuse hoidmise kohustust kohaldatakse konkreetselt

advokaadi kutseala suhtes ja lisaks üksnes nende teiste kutsealade esindajate suhtes,

kellele sarnaselt advokaatidega on liikmesriigi õiguse kohaselt antud õigus kohtus

esindada. Kohtuotsuse asjakohastes punktides on esitatud kohtu seisukoht.

105 Kolmandaks tuleb asuda seisukohale, et muudetud direktiivi 2011/16 artikli 8ab

lõikes 5 tehtud viide kutsesaladusele, mida kohaldatakse „liikmesriigi õiguse“ alusel, on

seletatav asjaoluga, et kuigi advokaadi ja tema kliendi vahelise teabevahetuse

tugevdatud kaitse on liidu tasandil juba tagatud harta artiklite 7 ja 47 alusel, on selle

kaitse kord ning eelkõige tingimused ja piirid, mille korral teised kutsesaladuse hoidmise

kohustusega kutseala esindajad võivad vajaduse korral tugineda sarnasele kaitsele,

reguleeritud riigisiseste õigustega. Sellega seoses nähtub Euroopa Kohtu käsutuses

olevast toimikust, et osa liikmesriike laiendab õigust kohtus esindada muudele kutsealade

esindajatele kui advokaadid.

106 Seega on küll põhjendatud, et – nagu näeb ette muudetud direktiivi 2011/16

artikli 8ab lõige 5 – liikmesriikidel on selles kontekstis kaalutlusruum, kui nad kasutavad

oma õigust asendada teabe esitamise kohustus teavitamiskohustusega, et nad saaksid

arvesse võtta muid kutsealade esindajaid peale advokaatide, kellele nad annavad õiguse

kohtus esindamiseks, kuid selle kaalutlusruumi eesmärk ei ole siiski võimaldada nendel

liikmesriikidel laiendada seda kohustuste asendamist kutsealade esindajatele, kes kohtus

ei esinda.

107 Peale selle tuleb lisada, et kui tõlgendada muudetud direktiivi 2011/16 artikli

8ab lõiget 5 ja liikmesriikide võimalust asendada teabe esitamise kohustus

teavitamiskohustusega teisiti, siis võib see tekitada liikmesriikide vahel moonutusi, kuna

see, et mõni liikmesriik kasutab seda võimalust ulatuslikult nende kutsealade esindajate

puhul, kellele kehtib kutsesaladuse hoidmise kohustus, kuid kes ei taga kohtus esindamist,

võib viia potentsiaalselt agressiivse maksuplaneerimise tegevuse üleviimiseni nende

territooriumile, kahjustades sellega siseturul maksustamise vältimise ja maksudest

kõrvalehoidumise vastu võitlemise tõhusust ja ühtsust liidu tasandil.

108 Eespool toodud kaalutlusi arvestades tuleb asuda seisukohale, et liikmesriikide

võimalus asendada teabe esitamise kohustus teavitamiskohustusega on antud muudetud

direktiivi 2011/16 artikli 8ab lõikega 5.

Teiseks tegi Euroopa Liidu Kohus otsuse küsimuses, kas neil teiste kutsealade

esindajatel, kes ei ole advokaadid, kuid kellele on sarnaselt advokaatidega

liikmesriigi õiguse kohaselt antud õigus kohtus esindada, on lubatud teavitada teisi

vahendajaid nende kohustusest esitada teavet aruantavate piiriüleste skeemide kohta1:

118 Arvestades neid kaalutlusi ja erilist rolli, mis nendel kaalutlustel antakse

advokaadi kutsealale ühiskonnas ning korrakohase õigusemõistmise huvides, tuleb asuda

seisukohale, et 8. detsembri 2022. aasta kohtuotsuses Orde van Vlaamse Balies jt

(C-694/20, EU:C:2022:963) advokaatide suhtes välja töötatud lahendus laieneb üksnes

1 Vastavalt Euroopa Liidu Kohtu otsusele kohtuasjas C-694/20: Orde van Vlaamse Balies jt.

3

isikutele, kes tegutsevad oma kutsealal mõne direktiivi 98/5 artikli 1 lõike 2 punktis a

nimetatud kutsenimetuse all.

119 Seega, mis puudutab teiste kutsealade esindajaid, kellele olenevalt olukorrast

võivad liikmesriigid küll olla andnud õiguse kohtus esindamiseks, kuid kes ei vasta

eespool nimetatud tunnustele, näiteks teatud liikmesriikides ülikooli õppejõud, siis ei

võimalda miski järeldada, et muudetud direktiivi 2011/16 artikli 8ab lõige 5 on harta

artiklist 7 tulenevalt kehtetu, kuna teavitamiskohustus – kui liikmesriik asendab teabe

esitamise kohustuse sellega – toob kaasa tagajärje, kus teavitava vahendaja ja tema

kliendi vahelisest konsulteerimissuhtest teatatakse teavitatavale vahendajale ja lõpuks

maksuhaldurile.

Siseriiklikud õigusaktid

Komisjoni talituste arusaamise kohaselt on järgmised õigusaktid asjakohased, et hinnata

liikmesriikide õigusaktide kooskõla Euroopa Liidu Kohtu selgitustega kohtuasjas C-

623/22 teabe esitamisest loobumise õiguse kohaldamise ulatuse kohta.

Advokatuuriseaduse § 45:

㤠45. Kutsesaladuse hoidmine

(1) The attorney is required to maintain the confidentiality of data disclosed to them in

the course of provision of a legal service, the fact that they have been addressed for the

purpose of receiving a legal service and the size of the fee paid for a legal service. The

attorney-client privilege does not have a time limit and it remains in force also after the

attorney’s legal practice has terminated. The attorney-client privilege also applies to the

employees of the law firm and to the employees of the Bar and to civil servants who have

learned information subject to the attorney-client privilege in the course of performance

of their service duties. The duty to maintain confidentiality of the fact that the attorney

has been addressed for the purpose of receiving a legal service and the size of the fee

paid to the attorney for a legal service does not apply to the provision of state-funded

legal aid and the fee paid for it. [RT I 2004, 56, 403 – entry into force 01.03.2005]

(2) The client or their legal successor may discharge the attorney from the attorney-

client privilege by written consent.

(3) The attorney-client privilege does not apply to the recovery of the legal service costs

of an attorney that participated in the case.

(4) Disclosure of information to the Board exercising oversight and to the Ethics

Tribunal hearing a disciplinary offence case is not considered a violation of the attorney-

client privilege.

(41) Disclosure of information to the Ministry of Justice in connection with regulatory

enforcement in matters concerning the practice of a bankruptcy trustee is not considered

a violation of the attorney-client privilege. [RT I, 31.05.2018, 2 – entry into force

10.06.2018]

(5) To prevent a criminal offence of the first degree, an attorney has the right to submit

to the president of the administrative court or to an administrative judge of the same

court appointed by the president of the court a reasoned written application requesting

4

that the attorney-client privilege be revoked. The judge hears the application without

delay and either revokes the privilege or refuses to revoke it.

Audiitortegevuse seaduse § 48

㤠48. Obligation to maintain professional secrecy

(1) An audit firm and a sworn auditor representing an audit firm on the basis of law are

required to maintain confidentiality of information and documents which have become

known thereto in the course of professional practice The obligation to maintain

professional secrecy shall have an unspecified term and shall also apply after the

termination of the professional practice of a sworn auditor.

(2) The obligation to maintain professional secrecy extends to the members of the bodies

of the Board of Auditors, the public servants of the Ministry of Finance and other

persons to whom the professional secrecy of a sworn auditor has become known during

the performance of the functions.

(3) Disclosure of information or documents shall not be deemed to be a violation of

professional secrecy if the information or documents are disclosed:

1) to the president, management board and supervisory board of the Board of Auditors

for the performance of its functions; [RT I, 23.12.2014, 2 – entry into force 01.01.2015]

2) to the Ministry of Finance for the performance of the functions assigned to it by this

Act;

3) to a court on the basis of a court ruling or court judgment;

4) to an investigative body in connection with a criminal proceeding;

5) to the Financial Intelligence Unit for the performance of its functions on the basis

provided for in the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act; [RT I,

21.11.2020, 1 – entry into force 01.01.2021]

6) to the person providing an auditing service to the parent undertaking of the client;

7) to the person carrying out internal quality control in the event of membership of the

sworn auditors network;

8) on the basis of subsection 16 (2) or clause 51 (2) 4) of the Money Laundering and

Terrorist Financing Prevention Act;[RT I, 10.07.2020, 1 – entry into force 20.07.2020]

81) in the cases specified in subsections 14 (4)–(8) of the Covered Bonds Act;[RT I,

28.02.2019, 1 - entry into force 01.03.2019]

9) to other persons with the written permission of the client.

(4) Disclosure of information shall not be deemed to be a violation of professional

secrecy if the information is disclosed to:

1) the National Audit Office for the performance of its functions;

2) 2) the Financial Supervision Authority for the performance of its functions.

5

(5) Upon the election of a new audit firm or substitution of an audit firm, the audit firm

substituted shall disclose information concerning a client, which has become known to it

in the course of the professional practice of a sworn auditor, to the elected or

substituting audit firm requiring it in accordance with the standards for professional

practice of a sworn auditor established on the basis of § 46 of this Act.

Maksualase teabevahetuse seaduse § 2014

§ 2014. Transfer of obligations of information provider

(1) An information provider has the right not to perform the obligations provided in §

2013 of this Act in case performance of the obligations would constitute a violation of the

obligation to keep professional secrecy arising from the law.

(2) An information provider notifies another information provider related to the

reportable arrangement or, in the absence of such information provider, the taxable

person concerned of a failure to perform the obligations provided in § 2013 of this Act.

(3) Upon failure to comply with the obligations provided in § 2013 of this Act, the

obligations of the information provider are transferred to the other information provider

concerned who has been notified thereof or, in the absence of such information provider,

to the taxable person concerned. [RT I, 21.12.2019, 22 – entry into force 01.01.2020]

Eespool esitatud sätetest ilmneb, et advokaadi kutsesaladus hõlmab nii õigusteenuse

osutamist üldiselt kui ka talle õigusteenust osutades teatavaks saanud andmeid, tema

poole õigusteenuse saamiseks pöördumise asjaolu ja õigusteenuse eest makstud tasu

suurust.

Lisaks reguleeritakse Eesti õigusaktidega audiitorite kutsesaladust. Sellisel juhul hõlmab

kutsesaladus kutsetegevuse käigus teatavaks saanud teavet ja dokumente. Audiitorite

kutsesaladuse hoidmise kohustusest võib vabastada palju suuremal arvul juhtudel.

Kutsesaladuse hoidmise kohaldamise isikuline kohaldamisala hõlmab audiitorettevõtjaid

ja audiitorühingut esindavaid vandeaudiitoreid.

Eesti on artikli 8ab lõike 5 üle võtnud maksualase teabevahetuse seaduse §-ga 2014.

Riiklikus rakendusmeetmes on sätestatud, et vahendajatel on õigus jätta teabe esitamise

kohustused täitmata, kui nende täitmine tähendaks kutsesaladuse hoidmise kohustuse

rikkumist. Erinevalt direktiivist, nagu seda on tõlgendanud Euroopa Liidu Kohus ja

milles viidatakse advokaadi kutsesaladuse hoidmise kohustuse võimalikule rikkumisele,

näib siseriiklik säte viitavat laiemale kutsesaladuse mõistele.

2. Komisjoni talituste õiguslik analüüs

Vastavalt maksustamisalase halduskoostöö direktiivi (mida on muudetud direktiiviga

(EL) 2018/822 ja hiljem direktiiviga (EL) 2023/2226) artikli 8ab lõikele 5 võib

vahendajatele anda õiguse loobuda aruantava piiriülese skeemi kohta teabe esitamisest,

kui aruandluskohustus oleks vastuolus liikmesriigi õiguse kohase kutsesaladuse hoidmise

kohustusega. Sellistel juhtudel peaks vahendaja teavitama oma kliente – kas siis

vahendajat, kes on tema klient, või maksumaksjat, kes on tema klient – nende

aruandluskohustustest.

Pärast Euroopa Liidu Kohtu 29. juuli 2024. aasta otsust kohtuasjas C-623/22 kuulub

kuuenda maksustamisalase halduskoostöö direktiivis sätestatud teabe esitamise

kohustuse kohaldamisalasse kolm kutsetöötajate kategooriat:

6

1) vahendajad, kellel on kutsesaladuse hoidmise kohustus, võivad esindada kliente

kohtus ja on vandeadvokaadid vastavalt direktiivi 98/5/EÜ artikli 1 lõikele 2: nende

suhtes kohaldatakse DAC6-s sätestatud teabe esitamisest loobumise õigust ja nad ei pea

teavitama teisi vahendajaid nende kohustustest maksuhaldurile aru anda. Kooskõlas

DAC6 artikli 8ab lõikega 5, mida on muudetud DAC8-ga, peavad nad siiski teavitama

oma kliente nende aruandluskohustustest;

2) vahendajad, kellel on kutsesaladuse hoidmise kohustus, võivad esindada kliente

kohtus, kuid ei ole vandeadvokaadid direktiivi 98/5/EÜ artikli 1 lõike 2 tähenduses:

nende suhtes kohaldatakse DAC6-s sätestatud teabe esitamisest loobumise õigust

(vastavalt kohtuasja C-623/22 punktile 108), kuid nad peavad teavitama teisi vahendajaid

nende kohustusest maksuhaldurile aru anda (vastavalt kohtuasja C-623/22 punktile 118);

3) vahendajad, kellel on kutsesaladuse hoidmise kohustus selle mõiste laias tähenduses

vastavalt asjaomaste liikmesriikide siseriiklikes õigusaktides antud määratlusele, kuid kes

ei saa esindada kliente kohtus: nende suhtes ei kohaldata DAC6-s sätestatud teabe

esitamisest loobumise õigust ja kohaldatakse kõiki DAC6 kohaseid aruandluskohustusi

(vastavalt kohtuasja C-623/22 punktile 108).

Komisjoni talitustele näib, et Eesti õigusaktides on kutsesaladuse mõiste ulatust DAC6-s

sätestatudpiiriüleseid skeeme puudutava teabe esitamisest loobumise õiguse

kohaldamisel laiendatud vahendajatele, kellel on kutsesaladuse hoidmise kohustus, kuid

kes ei ole vandeadvokaadid, nt audiitorid. Kui on olemas muud kutsesaladust käsitlevad

siseriiklikud õigusaktid, võidakse seda õigust potentsiaalselt kohaldada ka muude

kutsealade esindajate suhtes, nagu raamatupidajad ja nõustajad või muud

ettevõtjad/osalejad/ametid.

Komisjoni talitused tuletavad Eesti ametiasutustele meelde, et kooskõlas Euroopa Liidu

Kohtu otsusega kohtuasjas C-623/22 peaks vahendajatel selleks, et nad saaksid kasutada

aruantavaid piiriüleseid skeeme puudutava teabe esitamisest loobumise õigust, olema

seaduse kohaselt võimalik oma kliente kohtus esindada.

Lisaks ei vabasta DAC6-s sätestatud õigus loobuda piiriüleseid skeeme puudutava teabe

esitamisest neid kohustusest teavitada teisi vahendajaid nende kohustusest

maksuhaldurile aru anda, nagu nähtub Euroopa Liidu Kohtu selgitustest kohtuasjas C-

623/22.

4. Küsimused

Eespool toodut silmas pidades sooviksid komisjoni talitused saada Eesti ametiasutustelt

vastused kõigile järgmistele küsimustele.

1. Milline on kutsesaladuse mõiste ulatus, mida teie liikmesriigis kasutatakse teabe

esitamisest loobumise õiguse kohaldamisel vastavalt siseriiklikele õigusaktidele,

millega võeti üle maksualase halduskoostöö direktiivi artikli 8ab lõige 5?

Täpsemalt, millised kolmest eespool punktis 3 viidatud vahendajate kategooriast, mis

on tuletatud Euroopa Liidu Kohtu otsuse põhjal kohtuasjas C-623/22, on teie

jurisdiktsioonis selle mõistega hõlmatud? Palun viidake selles küsimuses oma

liikmesriigis kohaldatavale asjakohasele õiguslikule alusele ja/või kohtupraktikale.

2. Kas saate kinnitada, et teabe esitamisest loobumise õigust laiendatakse vastavalt teie

siseriiklikele õigusaktidele, millega võeti üle maksustamisalase halduskoostöö

direktiivi artikli 8ab lõige 5, ka vahendajatele, kellel on kutsesaladuse hoidmise

7

kohustus ja kes ei ole vandeadvokaadid direktiivi 98/5/EÜ artikli 2 tähenduses? Palun

esitage/märkige kõik kutsealad, mida peetakse selle õigusega hõlmatud

vahendajateks, ja kas need vahendajad võivad esindada kliente kohtus.

3. Kas teie liikmesriigi õigusaktid sisaldavad sätet, mille kohaselt peavad kutsealade

esindajad (v.a direktiivi 98/5/EÜ artiklis 2 osutatud vandeadvokaadid), kes võivad

oma kliente kohtus esindada, teavitama teisi vahendajaid nende teabe esitamise

kohustustest?

4. Milliseid meetmeid kavatsevad Eesti ametiasutused võtta, et tagada Euroopa Liidu

Kohtu otsuses C-623/22 tehtud järelduste järgimine?

Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 Office: SPA 3 6/86 - Tel. direct line +32 229-65452

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL TAXATION AND CUSTOMS UNION Direct taxation, Tax Coordination, Economic Analysis and Evaluation Legal affairs: direct taxation

Brussels, 29/04/2025

EU Pilot 10870/25/TAXU

EU Pilot 10870/25/TAXU

Object: The scope of the reporting waiver for legal professional privilege

(LPP) under article 8ab(5) of the Directive on Administrative

Cooperation (DAC6)

The Commission services would like to confirm the scope of the reporting waiver laid

down in the national legislation of Estonia transposing Article 8ab(5) of the Directive on

Administrative Cooperation (DAC) (as introduced by Directive (EU) 2018/822 and later

amended by Directive (EU) 2023/2226). This request for information should be seen

against the backdrop of the ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)

of 29 July 2024 in Case C-623/22. It is intended to gain a better understanding of the

extent to which Member States’ current national legislation transposing Article 8ab(5) of

DAC adequately reflects the CJEU’s case law to ensure a horizontal level playing field

and coherent application of the scope of the waiver to report cross-border arrangements

across Member States.

1. Relevant EU legislation and case law

Article 8ab(5) of Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of

taxation, as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2023/2226 of 17 October 2023:

“5. Each Member State may take the necessary measures to give intermediaries the right

to a waiver from filing information on a reportable cross-border arrangement where the

reporting obligation would breach the legal professional privilege under the national

law of that Member State. In such circumstances, each Member State shall take the

necessary measures to require any intermediaries that have been granted a waiver to

notify, without delay, their client, if that client is an intermediary or, where there is no

such intermediary, that client is the relevant taxpayer, of that client’s reporting

obligations under paragraph 6.”

This provision of DAC6 was subject to a ruling by the CJEU in Case C-623/22, “Belgian

association of tax lawyers and others”. The CJEU’s ruling can be summarised as follows:

Firstly, the CJEU discussed the scope of the waiver for legal professional privilege. It

noted discrepancies in the linguistic versions of the DAC6 (paragraphs 95-97) and the

varying interpretations of professional secrecy across Member States. The Court

therefore turned to the object and purpose of the rules of DAC6 (paragraph 98), the

2

preparatory work at OECD level (paragraphs 100-104) and to the need of consistent

application of the rules and a level playing field across Member States (paragraph 107).

Accordingly, the CJEU interpreted the term “legal professional privilege” to cover cases

of application of secrecy rules specifically to the legal profession and in addition to that

only to other professionals who, like lawyers, are authorised under national law to ensure

legal representation. The relevant paragraphs of the ruling are setting out the Court’s

view:

105 In the third place, it must be held that the reference made in Article 8ab(5) of

amended Directive 2011/16 to the legal professional privilege applicable ‘under the

national law’ is explained by the fact that, although enhanced protection of exchanges

between a lawyer and his or her client is already guaranteed at EU level on the basis of

Articles 7 and 47 of the Charter, the detailed rules governing that protection and, above

all, the conditions and limits within which other professionals bound by legal

professional privilege may, where appropriate, rely on comparable protection, are

governed by national laws. In that regard, it is apparent from the documents before the

Court that certain Member States extend the capacity to ensure legal representation to

professions other than lawyers.

106 While it is therefore justified, as provided for in Article 8ab(5) of amended

Directive 2011/16, for the Member States to have, in that context, a measure of

discretion in the exercise of their power to substitute the obligation to notify for the

reporting obligation, in order to allow them to take account of professions, other than

lawyers, which they authorise to ensure legal representation, the fact remains that that

discretion is not intended to allow those Member States to extend the benefit of that

substitution of obligations to professions which do not ensure such representation.

107 It should also be added that a different interpretation of Article 8ab(5) of amended

Directive 2011/16, and of the power of the Member States to substitute the obligation to

notify for the reporting obligation would risk creating distortions between Member

States, since a broad exercise of that power by some of them in relation to professions

bound by legal professional privilege but not ensuring legal representation, could lead to

the relocation of potentially aggressive tax-planning activities in their territory, thereby

undermining the effectiveness and the uniformity, at EU level, of the fight against tax

avoidance and evasion in the internal market.

108 In view of the foregoing considerations, it must be held that the power of the

Member States to substitute the obligation to notify for the reporting obligation was

given by Article 8ab(5) of amended Directive 2011/16 only in respect of professionals

who, like lawyers, are authorised under national law to ensure legal representation.

Secondly, the CJEU ruled on the question whether those other professionals who are

not lawyers, but who, like lawyers, are authorised under national law to ensure legal

representation, shall be prevented from notifying other intermediaries of their

reporting obligation on a reportable cross-border arrangement1:

118 In the light of those considerations, and of the unique position which they accord

to the profession of lawyer within society and for the purposes of the proper

administration of justice, it must be held that the solution thus adopted in the judgment of

1 as per the CJEU judgement in case C-694/20 Orde van Vlaamse Balies and others

3

8 December 2022, Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others (C‑694/20, EU:C:2022:963) as

regards lawyers can extend only to persons pursuing their professional activities under

one of the professional titles referred to in Article 1(2)(a) of Directive 98/5.

119 Therefore, as regards the other professionals who, although authorised, as the

case may be, by the Member States to ensure legal representation, do not meet the

abovementioned characteristics, such as, for example, university professors in certain

Member States, there is nothing to support the conclusion that Article 8ab(5) of amended

Directive 2011/16 is invalid in the light of Article 7 of the Charter, in so far as the

obligation to notify, where it is substituted by the Member State for the reporting

obligation, has the consequence that the existence of the consultation link between the

notifying intermediary and his or her client is brought to the attention of the notified

intermediary and, ultimately, the tax administration.

2. National legislation

The Commission services understand that the following legal acts are relevant for the

purposes of assessing the compliance of Member States’s legislation with the

clarifications brought by the CJEU on the scope of the waiver of reporting in Case C-

623/22.

Article 45 of the Bar Association Act:

§ 45. Attorney-client privilege

(1) The attorney is required to maintain the confidentiality of data disclosed to them in

the course of provision of a legal service, the fact that they have been addressed for the

purpose of receiving a legal service and the size of the fee paid for a legal service. The

attorney-client privilege does not have a time limit and it remains in force also after the

attorney’s legal practice has terminated. The attorney-client privilege also applies to the

employees of the law firm and to the employees of the Bar and to civil servants who have

learned information subject to the attorney-client privilege in the course of performance

of their service duties. The duty to maintain confidentiality of the fact that the attorney

has been addressed for the purpose of receiving a legal service and the size of the fee

paid to the attorney for a legal service does not apply to the provision of state-funded

legal aid and the fee paid for it. [RT I 2004, 56, 403 – entry into force 01.03.2005]

(2) The client or their legal successor may discharge the attorney from the attorney-

client privilege by written consent.

(3) The attorney-client privilege does not apply to the recovery of the legal service costs

of an attorney that participated in the case.

(4) Disclosure of information to the Board exercising oversight and to the Ethics

Tribunal hearing a disciplinary offence case is not considered a violation of the attorney-

client privilege.

(41) Disclosure of information to the Ministry of Justice in connection with regulatory

enforcement in matters concerning the practice of a bankruptcy trustee is not considered

a violation of the attorney-client privilege. [RT I, 31.05.2018, 2 – entry into force

10.06.2018]

(5) To prevent a criminal offence of the first degree, an attorney has the right to submit

to the president of the administrative court or to an administrative judge of the same

4

court appointed by the president of the court a reasoned written application requesting

that the attorney-client privilege be revoked. The judge hears the application without

delay and either revokes the privilege or refuses to revoke it.

Article 48 of the Auditors’ Activities Act:

§ 48. Obligation to maintain professional secrecy

(1) An audit firm and a sworn auditor representing an audit firm on the basis of law are

required to maintain confidentiality of information and documents which have become

known thereto in the course of professional practice The obligation to maintain

professional secrecy shall have an unspecified term and shall also apply after the

termination of the professional practice of a sworn auditor.

(2) The obligation to maintain professional secrecy extends to the members of the bodies

of the Board of Auditors, the public servants of the Ministry of Finance and other

persons to whom the professional secrecy of a sworn auditor has become known during

the performance of the functions.

(3) Disclosure of information or documents shall not be deemed to be a violation of

professional secrecy if the information or documents are disclosed:

1) to the president, management board and supervisory board of the Board of Auditors

for the performance of its functions; [RT I, 23.12.2014, 2 – entry into force 01.01.2015]

2) to the Ministry of Finance for the performance of the functions assigned to it by this

Act;

3) to a court on the basis of a court ruling or court judgment;

4) to an investigative body in connection with a criminal proceeding;

5) to the Financial Intelligence Unit for the performance of its functions on the basis

provided for in the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Prevention Act; [RT I,

21.11.2020, 1 – entry into force 01.01.2021]

6) to the person providing an auditing service to the parent undertaking of the client;

7) to the person carrying out internal quality control in the event of membership of the

sworn auditors network;

8) on the basis of subsection 16 (2) or clause 51 (2) 4) of the Money Laundering and

Terrorist Financing Prevention Act;[RT I, 10.07.2020, 1 – entry into force 20.07.2020]

81) in the cases specified in subsections 14 (4)–(8) of the Covered Bonds Act;[RT I,

28.02.2019, 1 - entry into force 01.03.2019]

9) to other persons with the written permission of the client.

(4) Disclosure of information shall not be deemed to be a violation of professional

secrecy if the information is disclosed to:

1) the National Audit Office for the performance of its functions;

2) 2) the Financial Supervision Authority for the performance of its functions.

5

(5) Upon the election of a new audit firm or substitution of an audit firm, the audit firm

substituted shall disclose information concerning a client, which has become known to it

in the course of the professional practice of a sworn auditor, to the elected or

substituting audit firm requiring it in accordance with the standards for professional

practice of a sworn auditor established on the basis of § 46 of this Act.

Article 2014 of the Tax Information Exchange Act

§ 2014. Transfer of obligations of information provider

(1) An information provider has the right not to perform the obligations provided in §

2013 of this Act in case performance of the obligations would constitute a violation of the

obligation to keep professional secrecy arising from the law.

(2) An information provider notifies another information provider related to the

reportable arrangement or, in the absence of such information provider, the taxable

person concerned of a failure to perform the obligations provided in § 2013 of this Act.

(3) Upon failure to comply with the obligations provided in § 2013 of this Act, the

obligations of the information provider are transferred to the other information provider

concerned who has been notified thereof or, in the absence of such information provider,

to the taxable person concerned. [RT I, 21.12.2019, 22 – entry into force 01.01.2020]

Based on the legislation above, it appears that the legal professional privilege for

attorneys covers in a general manner the activity of providing legal service, as well as the

information disclosed, the fact that attorneys have been addressed for the purpose of

receiving a legal service and the size of the fee paid for a legal service.

In addition, Estonian legislation regulates professional secrecy of auditors. In this case,

the secrecy extends to information and documents which have become known in the

course of professional practice of the auditor. The auditors’ obligation to maintain

professional secrecy can be lifted in a much broader number of cases. The personal scope

includes audit firms and sworn auditors representing audit firms.

Finally, Estonia has transposed article 8ab(5) in article 2014 of the Tax Information

Exchange Act. The NIM sets out a waiver for intermediaries when their reporting

obligations would constitute a breach of professional secrecy. In contrast with the

Directive, as interpreted by the CJEU, which refers to potential breach of the legal

professional privilege, the national provision appears to refer to a broader concept of

professional secrecy.

3. Legal analysis of Commission services

According to article 8ab(5) of the DAC, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/822 and

later by Directive (EU) 2023/2226, intermediaries who are subject to reporting of cross-

border arrangements may be subject to a waiver to report, if that reporting obligation

would breach the legal professional privilege under the national law. In such cases,

intermediaries would have to notify their clients - either an intermediary who is their

client or the taxpayer who is their client - of their own reporting obligations.

Following the ruling of the CJEU in Case C-623/22 of 29 July 2024, three categories of

professionals in the context of the reporting obligations of DAC 6 exist:

6

1) intermediaries that are subject to professional secrecy can represent clients in courts

and are lawyers as per Article 1(2) of Directive 98/5/EC: the waiver to report set by DAC

6 applies and they do not need to notify other intermediaries of their duty to report to tax

authorities. In line with article 8ab(5) of DAC6, as amended by DAC8, they will,

however, need to notify their clients of their reporting obligations.

2) intermediaries that are subject to professional secrecy can represent clients in courts,

but are not lawyers as per Article 1(2) of Directive 98/5/EC: the waiver to report set by

DAC 6 applies (as per paragraph 108 of case C-623/22), but they must notify other

intermediaries of their duty to report to tax authorities (as per paragraph 118 of case C-

623/22);

3) intermediaries that are subject to a professional secrecy provision in the broad sense of

that term, as understood in the national legislation of the Member States concerned, but

cannot represent clients in courts: the waiver to report set by DAC 6 does not apply and

all reporting obligations under DAC 6 are applicable (as per paragraph 108 of Case C-

623/22).

It appears to the Commission services that under Estonian legislation, the scope of the

legal professional privilege for the purpose of waiver from reporting cross-border

arrangements under DAC 6 is extended to intermediaries subject to professional secrecy,

but that are not lawyers, e.g. auditors. In case there might be other national legislation on

professional secrecy, this could potentially cover other professionals such as accountants

and advisors, or other operators/actors/professions

The Commission services would like to remind the Estonian authorities that, in line with

the CJEU’s ruling in Case C-623/22, in order for an intermediary to be able to benefit

from the waiver to report cross-border arrangements, these intermediaries would have to

be legally able to represent their clients in court.

In addition, the waiver to report a cross-border arrangement set under DAC 6 does not

exempt them from notifying other intermediaries of their duty to report to tax authorities,

as per the clarifications of the CJEU in Case C-623/22.

4. Questions

In light of the above, the Commission services would appreciate it if the Estonian

authorities could provide answers to all of the following questions:

1. What is the scope of the notion of legal professional privilege used for the purpose of

application of the reporting waiver as per the national legislation transposing Article

8ab(5) of the Directive on Administrative Cooperation in your Member State?

In particular, which of the three categories of intermediaries resulting from the

CJEU’s judgement in Case C-623/22 referred to in section 3 above are covered by the

concept in your jurisdiction? Please refer to the relevant legal basis and/or

jurisprudence in that field, applicable to your Member State.

2. Could you confirm that the scope of the waiver to report, according to your national

legislation transposing Article 8(ab)5 of DAC, is extended to intermediaries subject

to professional secrecy that are not lawyers as per Article 2 of Directive 98/5/EC?

7

Please refer/mention all types of professions that are considered covered

intermediaries and whether those intermediaries may represent clients in courts.

3. Does your national legislation contain a provision under which professionals, other

than lawyers under Article 2 of Directive 98/5/EC, who can defend their clients

before courts, must notify other intermediaries of their reporting obligations?

4. What measures will the Estonian authorities take to ensure compliance with the

conclusions of the CJEU’s ruling in Case C-623/22?