zurück zu Linde Digital
TEL.: +43 1 246 30-801  |  E-MAIL: support@lindeverlag.at
Suchen Hilfe

Besitzen Sie diesen Inhalt bereits, melden Sie sich an.
oder schalten Sie Ihr Produkt zur digitalen Nutzung frei.

Dokumentvorschau
SWI 4, April 2021, Seite 192

Verstößt die Unterrichtungspflicht des befreiten Intermediärs nach Art 8ab Abs 5 EU-Amtshilferichtlinie (DAC 6) gegen Art 7 und 47 GRC?

Does the Obligation of the Exempted Intermediary to Notify Under Art 8ab Para 5 Mutual Assistance Directive (DAC 6) Violate Art 7 and 47 Charter of Fundamental Rights?

Mario Riedl

In a recent request for a preliminary ruling, the Grondwettelijk Hof raised legal concerns to the CJEU as to whether Art 8ab para 5 Mutual Assistance Directive (DAC 6) is compatible with the Charter of Fundamental Rights. According to Art 8ab para 5 DAC 6, intermediaries who have been exempted from the reporting obligations by member states due to “legal professional privilege” (professional secrecy) must notify any other intermediary (in case there is one) about their reporting obligations. The Belgian Constitutional Court considers this to be an infringement of the professional secrecy of legal advisors and thus a possible violation of Art 7 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. The professional secrecy of legal advisors is a cornerstone of their activity and a fundamental basis for a functioning rule of law. Mario Riedl analyzes the professional secrecy under EU law and, based on this, the underlying request for a preliminary ruling in light of Art 7 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

I. DAC 6 im Überblick und Problemstellung

Durch die DAC 6 erfuhr die EU-Amtshilferichtlinie ihre fünfte Änderung, und gleichzeitig wurde der Umfang an automatisch auszutauschenden In...

Daten werden geladen...