In this note, the author examines the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in Aroutsidis v. Greece concerning the application of the presumption of innocence under article 6(2) of the Convention in subsequent administrative tax proceedings following the applicant’s final criminal acquittal in respect of the same factual circumstances. It focuses on the temporal scope of the presumption of innocence, the requirement of a sufficient connection between the concluded criminal and subsequent administrative proceedings, and the obligation of administrative authorities and courts to respect the operative part of a final acquittal. It further considers the principle of a lawful judge and the subsequent development of Greek administrative case law.
This article delves into the “34-day threshold” that the Protocol of 14 April 2025 introduces into article 14(1a) of the Germany-Netherlands Income Tax Treaty (2012). The authors examine which other bilateral home working arrangements in place could serve as a source of inspiration for expanding this threshold. The issue of home office PEs has been addressed extensively in the literature and will not be dealt with. The focus of this contribution is on the cross-border worker as an “employee” under private law. Civil servants working from home (article 18) will not be discussed, as this issue warrants a separate contribution.
The Court of Justice of the European Union’s 10 September 2024 decision in Commission v. Ireland and Others (C-465/20 P) closed one chapter of the Apple controversy and opened another. The Grand Chamber’s finding that the pre-2015 IP-related profits were attributable, for Irish tax purposes, to the Irish branches of Apple weakens the factual premise of the post-2015 structure. Apple 2.0 – the operation of section 291A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 between 2015 and 2017 – raises State aid questions distinct from the closed dispute that bring into operation the equal treatment rationale of article 107(1) of the TFEU.
The Annual Tax Act 2024 extended German exit taxation to certain investment fund units held as private assets. This note places the new rules within the existing exit tax system and examines their compatibility with the EU fundamental freedoms. Particular concerns arise in relation to the seven-year instalment regime and the requirement to provide security.
The FASTER Directive requires Member States to recognize a common electronic tax residence certificate (eTRC) and deliver withholding tax relief through fast-track procedures operated by intermediaries. This article argues that FASTER creates a system pursuant to which the legal significance attached to the certificate exceeds the coordination of the residence determination beneath it: the eTRC records a unilateral domestic finding, yet treaty relief may turn on unresolved dual residence and further treaty conditions unknown to the intermediary. A typology of four potential mismatches between an investor account and relief entitlement shows that the FASTER Directive, while not giving rise to such mismatches and mitigating some of them may amplify their consequences. This contrasts with social security coordination, where an EU conflict rule stands behind the binding A1 certificate. This gap can be traced back to Member State incentives. The article concludes by presenting a conflict-detection instrument designed to make competing residence claims visible.
