Aggressiivisen verosuunnittelun torjunta Euroopan unionin perusoikeuskirjan mukaisten perusoikeuksien rajoitusperusteena

Since the 2010s, the European Union’s direct taxation policy has been closely focused on preventing tax base erosion and various forms of harmful tax behaviour, building upon the OECD’s BEPS Action Plan. Within the Union’s tax policy discourse, the prevention of tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning has been a recurring objective. However, the definition of the concept of aggressive tax planning, and its distinction from tax avoidance, has not yet been clearly established in Union law. Nevertheless, the EU legislator actively uses the concept to justify secondary legislation aimed at preventing harmful tax practices, for instance by imposing reporting obligations on taxpayers and their advisers. Insofar as these obligations interfere with fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy, such restrictions may only be permitted on specific grounds and in pursuit of an objective of general interest. This thesis examines the role of the objective of combating aggressive tax planning as a justification for limiting fundamental rights under the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. It analyses the content and legal significance of the concept of aggressive tax planning in Union law and studies how the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), as the interpreter of the Charter, has assessed the DAC6 Directive aimed at combating aggressive tax planning in relation to the Charter’s fundamental rights and their permissible limitations. The thesis shows that while the CJEU acknowledges the objective of combating aggressive tax planning, it does not attribute to it independent weight as a ground of general interest justifying limitations on fundamental rights. Instead, the Court associates it with other forms of reprehensible tax behaviour. This approach is seen to result from the Court’s reluctance to operate with the concept of aggressive tax planning autonomously, as the EU legislator itself employs the notion imprecisely and without a clear legal definition. The conclusion drawn is that if the EU legislator continues to invoke the objective of combating aggressive tax planning as a justification for obligations and restrictions imposed on taxpayers, a more precise definition of the concept and a clearer distinction from other forms of reprehensible tax behavior would be prudent to ensure that the objective of such regulation can be properly weighted against potential restrictions of fundamental rights.