Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies - Petani Law & Tax<\/title>\r\n <script src=\"https:\/\/cdn.tailwindcss.com\"><\/script>\r\n <link href=\"https:\/\/fonts.googleapis.com\/css2?family=Inter:wght@300;400;500;600;700&family=Playfair+Display:ital,wght@0,400;0,600;0,700;1,400;1,700&display=swap\" rel=\"stylesheet\">\r\n \r\n <style>\r\n :root {\r\n --gold: #c5a059;\r\n --gold-light: #dfc493;\r\n --espresso: #1a0f0a;\r\n --brown-deep: #2c1810;\r\n --cream: #fdfcf9;\r\n }\r\n body { font-family: 'Inter', sans-serif; background-color: var(--cream); color: var(--espresso); line-height: 1.8; }\r\n script { display: none; }\r\n .serif { font-family: 'Playfair Display', serif; }\r\n\r\n .drop-cap::first-letter { float: left; font-family: 'Playfair Display', serif; font-size: 4.5rem; line-height: 3.5rem; padding-top: 8px; padding-right: 12px; color: var(--gold); font-weight: 700; }\r\n p { margin-bottom: 1.5rem; font-size: 1.125rem; color: #333; }\r\n \r\n .case-card { background-color: var(--brown-deep) !important; color: #ffffff !important; border-left: 4px solid var(--gold); }\r\n .case-card p, .case-card h3 { color: #ffffff !important; }\r\n\r\n \/* TranslatePress Automatic Display Rules *\/\r\n .tp-lang-block { display: none; }\r\n\r\n \/* Show Albanian when TranslatePress language is SQ *\/\r\n body.translatepress-sq_AL .tp-lang-sq,\r\n html[lang=\"sq\"] .tp-lang-sq { display: block; }\r\n\r\n \/* Show English when TranslatePress language is EN *\/\r\n body.translatepress-en_US .tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_GB .tp-lang-en,\r\n html[lang=\"en\"] .tp-lang-en { display: block; }\r\n\r\n \/* Show Italian when TranslatePress language is IT *\/\r\n body.translatepress-it_IT .tp-lang-it,\r\n html[lang=\"it\"] .tp-lang-it { display: block; }\r\n <\/style>\r\n<\/head>\r\n<body class=\"antialiased\">\r\n\r\n <main class=\"max-w-4xl mx-auto px-6 py-12\">\r\n \r\n \r\n <div class=\"relative w-full h-[400px] rounded-3xl overflow-hidden shadow-2xl mb-12 border-b-4 border-[var(--gold)]\">\r\n <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/images.pexels.com\/photos\/6077447\/pexels-photo-6077447.jpeg\" alt=\"CJEU Judgment on Legal Professional Privilege and Tax Planning\" class=\"w-full h-full object-cover object-center brightness-[0.65]\">\r\n <div class=\"absolute inset-0 bg-gradient-to-t from-black\/90 to-transparent\"><\/div>\r\n <div class=\"absolute bottom-8 left-8 text-white pr-8\">\r\n <p class=\"text-[var(--gold)] tracking-widest uppercase font-semibold text-sm mb-2\">Vendim i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Evrop\u00ebs \u2022 \u00c7\u00ebshtja C-694\/20<\/p>\r\n <h1 class=\"serif text-4xl font-bold leading-tight\">Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others<\/h1>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article class=\"tp-lang-block tp-lang-sq\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">Lufta kund\u00ebr planifikimit agresiv tatimor: detyrimi i avokatit p\u00ebr t\u00eb informuar nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm dhe shkel t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve me klientin e tij ose t\u00eb saj<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">T\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb nj\u00eb planifikim t\u00eb till\u00eb, dhe vet\u00eb tatimpaguesi, i n\u00ebnshtrohen k\u00ebtij detyrimi raportimi, i cili b\u00ebn t\u00eb mundur sigurimin q\u00eb autoritetet tatimore t\u00eb informohen. Nj\u00eb Direktiv\u00eb e BE-s\u00eb parashikon se t\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb planifikimin tatimor nd\u00ebrkufitar potencialisht agresiv (marr\u00ebveshje q\u00eb mund t\u00eb \u00e7ojn\u00eb n\u00eb shmangie dhe evazion fiskal) k\u00ebrkohet t'i raportojn\u00eb ato pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore kompetente.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor<\/h3>\r\n <p>Ky detyrim ka t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb me t\u00eb gjith\u00eb ata q\u00eb marrin pjes\u00eb n\u00eb dizajnimin, tregtimin, organizimin ose menaxhimin e zbatimit t\u00eb k\u00ebtij planifikimi. T\u00eb gjith\u00eb ata q\u00eb ofrojn\u00eb ndihm\u00eb ose k\u00ebshilla n\u00eb lidhje me at\u00eb planifikim, ose n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb personave t\u00eb till\u00eb, vet\u00eb tatimpaguesi gjithashtu mbulohen. Megjithat\u00eb, \u00e7do Shtet An\u00ebtar mund t'u jof\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsve nj\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtim nga ky detyrim kur ai do t\u00eb cenonte fsheht\u00ebsin\u00eb profesionale t\u00eb mbrojtur sipas ligjit t\u00eb tij komb\u00ebtar. N\u00eb rreth t\u00eb tilla, avokat\u00ebt-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs megjithat\u00eb k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb njoftojn\u00eb pa vones\u00eb \u00e7do nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs tjet\u00ebr, ose tatimpaguesin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, p\u00ebr detyrimet e lor raportuese ndaj autoriteteve kompetente.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Dekreti flemand q\u00eb transpozon at\u00eb direktiv\u00eb k\u00ebshtu parashikon se, kur nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs i p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb planifikimin tatimor nd\u00ebrkufitar \u00ebsht\u00eb i lidhur nga fsheht\u00ebsia profesionale, ai ose ajo duhet t\u00eb informoj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb se ai ose ajo nuk mund ta b\u00ebj\u00eb vet\u00eb at\u00eb raportim. Dy organizata profesionale t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve soll\u00ebn padi para Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese t\u00eb Belgjik\u00ebs. N\u00eb parashtresat e tyre, \u00ebsht\u00eb e pamundur t\u00eb sigurohet informacion p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb pa shkelur fsheht\u00ebsin\u00eb profesionale nga e cila avokat\u00ebt jan\u00eb t\u00eb lidhur. Gjykata Kushtetuese e Belgjik\u00ebs k\u00ebrkon nj\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje nga Gjykata e Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb drejtim.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">N\u00eb vendimin e saj sot, Gjykata e Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb kujton n\u00eb radh\u00eb t\u00eb par\u00eb se Neni 7 i Kart\u00ebs s\u00eb t\u00eb Drejtave Themelore t\u00eb Bashkimit Evropian mbron konfidencialitetin e t\u00eb gjith\u00eb korrespondenc\u00ebs midis individ\u00ebve dhe siguron mbrojtje t\u00eb p\u00ebrforcuar p\u00ebr shk\u00ebmbimet midis avokat\u00ebve dhe klient\u00ebve t\u00eb tyre. Ajo mbrojtje specifike q\u00eb i jepet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve arsyetohet nga fakti se avokat\u00ebve u caktohet nj\u00eb rol themelor n\u00eb nj\u00eb shoq\u00ebri demokratike, ai i mbrojtjes s\u00eb pal\u00ebve nd\u00ebrgjyq\u00ebse. Ky rol k\u00ebrkon q\u00eb \u00e7do individ t\u00eb jet\u00eb n\u00eb gjendje t\u00eb k\u00ebrkoj\u00eb k\u00ebshilla lirisht nga avokati i tij ose i saj, nj\u00eb parim i njohur n\u00eb t\u00eb gjitha Shtetet An\u00ebtare. Fsheht\u00ebsia profesionale gjithashtu mbulon konsultimin ligjor, si p\u00ebr sa i p\u00ebrket p\u00ebrmbajtjes s\u00eb tij ashtu edhe ekzistenc\u00ebs s\u00eb tij.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">P\u00ebrve\u00e7 situatave jasht\u00ebzakonshme, klient\u00ebt duhet t\u00eb ken\u00eb nj\u00eb pritshm\u00ebri legjitime se, pa p\u00eblqimin e tyre, avokati i tyre nuk do t'i zbuloj\u00eb kujt se ata po e konsultojn\u00eb at\u00eb ose at\u00eb. Megjithat\u00eb, detyrimi i p\u00ebrcaktuar nga Direktiva p\u00ebr nj\u00eb avokat-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs q\u00eb i n\u00ebnshtrohet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar pa vones\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb p\u00ebr detyrimet e tyre raportuese n\u00ebnkupton se ata nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs t\u00eb tjer\u00eb b\u00ebhen t\u00eb vet\u00ebdijsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr identitetin e avokatit-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs. Ata gjithashtu b\u00ebhen t\u00eb vet\u00ebdijsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr analiz\u00ebn e tij ose t\u00eb saj se marr\u00ebveshja tatimore n\u00eb fjal\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb e raportueshme dhe p\u00ebr faktin e konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj n\u00eb lidhje me marr\u00ebveshjen.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Ky detyrim p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar sjell nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrhyrje n\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve midis avokat\u00ebve dhe klient\u00ebve t\u00eb tyre, t\u00eb garantuar n\u00eb Nenin 7 t\u00eb Kart\u00ebs s\u00eb t\u00eb Drejtave Themelore. Duke qen\u00eb se nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb informojn\u00eb autoritetet tatimore kompetente p\u00ebr identitetin e avokatit dhe faktin e konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj, ky detyrim gjithashtu \u00e7on indirekt n\u00eb nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrhyrje t\u00eb dyt\u00eb n\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr fsheht\u00ebsi profesionale. M\u00eb pas Gjykata ekzaminon n\u00ebse k\u00ebto nd\u00ebrhyrje mund t\u00eb justifikohen, n\u00eb ve\u00e7anti n\u00ebse ato p\u00ebrmbushin objektivat e interesit t\u00eb p\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm t\u00eb njohura nga BE-ja dhe n\u00ebse ato jan\u00eb t\u00eb nevojshme p\u00ebr ndjekjen e atyre objektivave. Gjykata kujton se amendamenti i b\u00ebr\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2018 n\u00eb direktiv\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebn pjes\u00eb t\u00eb bashk\u00ebpunimit tatimor nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtar q\u00eb synon t\u00eb kontribuoj\u00eb n\u00eb parandalimin e rrezikut t\u00eb shmangies dhe evazionit tatimor, gj\u00eb q\u00eb p\u00ebub\u00ebn nj\u00eb nga objektivat e interesit t\u00eb p\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm t\u00eb njohura nga BE-ja.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Sidoqoft\u00eb, Gjykata konsideron se detyrimi i njoftimit mbi nj\u00eb avokat q\u00eb i n\u00ebnshtrohet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr t\u00eb arritur at\u00eb objektivat. T\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb dor\u00ebzojn\u00eb at\u00eb informacion pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore kompetente. Asnj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs nuk mund t\u00eb pretendoj\u00eb se ai ose ajo ishte n\u00eb dijeni t\u00eb detyrimeve raportuese - t\u00eb cilat jan\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktuar qart\u00eb n\u00eb Direktiv\u00eb - ndaj t\u00eb cilave ai ose ajo i n\u00ebnshtrohet drejtp\u00ebrdrejt dhe individualisht. Direktiva e b\u00ebn avokatin-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs nj\u00eb person nga i cili nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb nuk mund, a priori, t\u00eb presin ndonj\u00eb iniciativ\u00eb t\u00eb aft\u00eb p\u00ebr t'i leht\u00ebsuar ata nga detyrimet e tyre raportuese.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Zbulimi, nga pal\u00ebt e treta nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebse t\u00eb njoftuara, i identitetit t\u00eb avokatit-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs dhe faktit t\u00eb konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore gjithashtu nuk duket t\u00eb jet\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr ndjekjen e objektivave t\u00eb Direktiv\u00ebs. Detyrimi raportues mbi nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb q\u00eb nuk i n\u00ebnshtrohen fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale dhe, n\u00ebse nuk ka nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs t\u00eb till\u00eb, ky detyrim mbi tatimpaguesin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, sigurojn\u00eb, n\u00eb parim, q\u00eb autoritetet tatimore t\u00eb informohen. Autoritetet tatimore mund t\u00eb, pasi t\u00eb ken\u00eb marr\u00eb informacion t\u00eb till\u00eb, t\u00eb k\u00ebrkojn\u00eb informacion shtes\u00eb direkt nga tatimpaguesi p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, i cili m\u00eb pas do t\u00eb jet\u00eb n\u00eb gjendje t\u00eb konsultoj\u00eb avokatin e tij ose t\u00eb saj p\u00ebr ndihm\u00eb. Autoritetet tatimore gjithashtu mund t\u00eb kryejn\u00eb nj\u00eb auditim t\u00eb situat\u00ebs tatimore t\u00eb atij tatimpaguesi. Prandaj, Gjykata mban q\u00ebndrimin se detyrimi p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar i p\u00ebrcaktuar nga Direktiva shkel t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve midis nj\u00eb avokati dhe klientit t\u00eb tij ose saj.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article class=\"tp-lang-block tp-lang-en\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">Combatting aggressive tax planning: the obligation for a lawyer to inform other intermediaries involved is not necessary and infringes the right to respect for communications with his or her client<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">All the other intermediaries involved in such planning, and the taxpayer him- or herself, are subject to that reporting obligation, which makes it possible to ensure that the tax authorities are informed An EU Directive 1 provides that all intermediaries involved in potentially aggressive cross-border tax-planning (arrangements which could lead to tax avoidance and evasion) are required to report them to the competent tax authorities.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">Case Summary & Legal Reasoning<\/h3>\r\n <p>That obligation concerns all those who participate in the design, marketing, organisation or management of the implementation of that planning. All those who provide assistance or advice in relation to that planning, or in the absence of such persons, the taxpayer him- or are also covered. However, each Member State may grant intermediaries a waiver from that obligation where it would breach legal professional privilege protected under its national law. In such circumstances, lawyer-intermediaries are however required to notify without delay any other intermediary, or the relevant taxpayer, of their reporting obligations vis-\u00e0-vis the competent authorities.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">The Flemish decree transposing that directive thus provides that, when an intermediary involved in cross-border tax planning is bound by legal professional privilege, he or she must inform the other intermediaries that he or she cannot make that report him- or herself. Two lawyers' professional organisations brought actions before the Belgian Constitutional Court. In their submission, it is impossible to provide information to other intermediaries without breaching the legal professional privilege by which lawyers are bound. The Belgian Constitutional Court seeks an answer from the Court of Justice in that regard.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">In its judgment today, the Court of Justice recalls first of all that Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union protects the confidentiality of all correspondence between individuals and affords strengthened protection to exchanges between lawyers and their clients. That specific protection afforded to lawyers\u2019 legal professional privilege is justified by the fact that lawyers are assigned a fundamental role in a democratic society, that of defending litigants. That role requires that any individual is able to seek advice freely from his or her lawyer, a principle recognised in all Member States. Legal professional privilege also covers legal consultation, both with regard to its content and its existence.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Other than in exceptional situations, clients must have a legitimate expectation that, without their consent, their lawyer 1 Council Directive 2011\/16\/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77\/799\/EEC (OJ 2011 L 64, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2018\/822 of 25 May 2018 (OJ 2018 L 139, p. 1). Communications Directorate Press and Information Unit curia.europa.eu will not disclose to anyone that they are consulting him or her. However, the obligation laid down by the Directive 2 for a lawyer-intermediary subject to legal professional privilege to notify without delay other intermediaries of their reporting obligations implies that those other intermediaries become aware of the identity of the lawyer-intermediary.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">They also become aware of his or her analysis that the tax arrangement at issue is reportable and of his or her having been consulted in connection with the arrangement. That obligation to notify entails an interference with the right to respect for communications between lawyers and their clients, guaranteed in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Given that other intermediaries are required to inform the competent tax authorities of the identity of the lawyer and of his or her having been consulted, that obligation also leads indirectly to a second interference with the right to legal professional privilege. The Court then examines whether those interferences may be justified, in particular whether they meet objectives of general interest recognised by the EU and whether they are necessary for the pursuit of those objectives. The Court recalls that the amendment made in 2018 to the directive forms part of international tax cooperation aimed at contributing to the prevention of the risk of tax avoidance and evasion, which constitutes one of the objectives of general interest recognised by the EU.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">The Court considers however that the notification obligation on a lawyer subject to legal professional privilege is not necessary in order to attain that objective. All intermediaries are required to file that information with the competent tax authorities. No intermediary can claim that he or she was unaware of the reporting obligations - which are clearly set out in the Directive - to which he or she is directly and individually subject. The Directive makes a lawyer-intermediary a person from whom other intermediaries cannot, a priori, expect any initiative capable of relieving them of their own reporting obligations.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">The disclosure, by notified intermediary third parties, of the identity of the lawyer-intermediary and of his or her having been consulted to the tax authorities also does not appear to be necessary for the pursuit of the objectives of the Directive. The reporting obligation on other intermediaries who are not subject to legal professional privilege and, if there are no such intermediaries, that obligation on the relevant taxpayer, ensure, in principle, that the tax authorities are informed. The tax authorities may, after receiving such information, request additional information directly from the relevant taxpayer, who will then be able to consult his or her lawyer for assistance. The tax authorities may also conduct an audit of that taxpayer\u2019s tax situation. The Court therefore holds that the obligation to notify laid down by the Directive infringes the right to respect for communications between a lawyer and his or her client.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article class=\"tp-lang-block tp-lang-it\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">Lotta alla pianificazione fiscale aggressiva: l'obbligo per un avvocato di informare gli altri intermediari coinvolti non \u00e8 necessario e viola il diritto al rispetto delle comunicazioni con il proprio cliente<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">Tutti gli altri intermediari coinvolti in tale pianificazione, e il contribuente stesso, sono soggetti a tale obbligo di segnalazione, il che consente di garantire che le autorit\u00e0 fiscali siano informate. Una direttiva dell'UE prevede che tutti gli intermediari coinvolti in una pianificazione fiscale transfrontaliera potenzialmente aggressiva (accordi che potrebbero portare all'elusione e all'evasione fiscale) siano tenuti a segnalarli alle autorit\u00e0 fiscali competenti.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica<\/h3>\r\n <p>Tale obbligo riguarda tutti coloro che partecipano alla progettazione, commercializzazione, organizzazione o gestione dell'attuazione di tale pianificazione. Sono compresi anche tutti coloro che forniscono assistenza o consulenza in relazione a tale pianificazione o, in mancanza di tali persone, lo stesso contribuente. Tuttavia, ciascuno Stato membro pu\u00f2 concedere agli intermediari una deroga a tale obbligo qualora ci\u00f2 violi il segreto professionale protetto dal suo diritto nazionale. In tali circostanze, gli avvocati-intermediari sono tuttavia tenuti a notificare senza indugio a qualsiasi altro intermediario, o al contribuente interessato, i loro obblighi di segnalazione nei confronti delle autorit\u00e0 competenti.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Il decreto fiammingo che recepisce tale direttiva prevede quindi che, quando un intermediario coinvolto nella pianificazione fiscale transfrontaliera \u00e8 vincolato dal segreto professionale, egli debba informare gli altri intermediari che non pu\u00f2 effettuare tale segnalazione in prima persona. Due organizzazioni professionali di avvocati hanno adito la Corte costituzionale belga. A loro avviso, \u00e8 impossibile fornire informazioni ad altri intermediari senza violare il segreto professionale a cui gli avvocati sono vincolati. La Corte costituzionale belga chiede una risposta alla Corte di Giustizia a tale riguardo.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Nella sua sentenza odierna, la Corte di giustizia ricorda anzitutto che l'articolo 7 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea tutela la riservatezza di tutte le corrispondenze tra individui e garantisce una protezione rafforzata agli scambi tra gli avvocati e i loro clienti. Tale specifica protezione accordata al segreto professionale degli avvocati \u00e8 giustificata dal fatto che agli avvocati \u00e8 assegnato un ruolo fondamentale in una societ\u00e0 democratica, quello di difendere i litigaretti. Tale ruolo richiede che qualsiasi individuo sia in grado di chiedere liberamente consiglio al proprio avvocato, principio riconosciuto in tutti gli Stati membri. Il segreto professionale copre anche la consultazione legale, sia per quanto riguarda il suo contenuto che la sua esistenza.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Salvo situazioni eccezionali, i clienti devono avere il legittimo affidamento che, senza il loro consenso, il loro avvocato non riveler\u00e0 a nessuno che lo stanno consultando. Tuttavia, l'obbligo stabilito dalla Direttiva per un avvocato-intermediario soggetto al segreto professionale di notificare senza indugio agli altri intermediari i loro obblighi di segnalazione implica che tali altri intermediari vengano a conoscenza dell'identit\u00e0 dell'avvocato-intermediario.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Essi vengono inoltre a conoscenza della sua analisi secondo cui l'accordo fiscale in questione \u00e8 passibile di segnalazione e del fatto che egli \u00e8 stato consultato in relazione a tale accordo. Tale obbligo di notifica comporta un'interferenza con il diritto al rispetto delle comunicazioni tra avvocati e clienti, garantito dall'articolo 7 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali. Poich\u00e9 gli altri intermediari sono tenuti a informare le autorit\u00e0 fiscali competenti dell'identit\u00e0 dell'avvocato e del fatto di essere stati consultati, tale obbligo porta indirettamente anche a una seconda interferenza con il diritto al segreto professionale. La Corte esamina quindi se tali interferenze possano essere giustificate, in particolare se rispondano a obiettivi di interesse generale riconosciuti dall'UE e se siano necessarie per il perseguimento di tali obiettivi. La Corte ricorda che la modifica apportata nel 2018 alla direttiva si inserisce nella cooperazione fiscale internazionale volta a contribuire alla prevenzione del rischio di elusione ed evasione fiscale, che costituisce uno degli obiettivi di interesse generale riconosciuti dall'UE.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">La Corte ritiene tuttavia che l'obbligo di notifica a carico di un avvocato soggetto al segreto professionale non sia necessario per raggiungere tale obiettivo. Tutti gli intermediari sono tenuti a presentare tali informazioni alle autorit\u00e0 fiscali competenti. Nessun intermediario pu\u00f2 pretendere di non essere a conoscenza degli obblighi di segnalazione - chiaramente stabiliti nella Direttiva - ai quali \u00e8 direttamente e individualmente soggetto. La Direttiva fa di un avvocato-intermediario una persona da cui gli altri intermediari non possono, a priori, aspettarsi alcuna iniziativa capace di solleverli dai loro stessi obblighi di segnalazione.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">La divulgazione, da parte di terzi intermediari notificati, dell'identit\u00e0 dell'avvocato-intermediario e del fatto di essere stato consultato alle autorit\u00e0 fiscali non appare inoltre necessaria per il perseguimento degli obiettivi della Direttiva. L'obbligo di segnalazione a carico di altri intermediari non soggetti al segreto professionale e, in mancanza di tali intermediari, tale obbligo a carico del contribuente interessato, garantiscono, in linea di principio, che le autorit\u00e0 fiscali siano informate. Le autorit\u00e0 fiscali possono, dopo aver ricevuto tali informazioni, richiedere informazioni supplementari direttamente al contribuente interessato, il quale potr\u00e0 quindi consultare il proprio avvocato per assistenza. Le autorit\u00e0 fiscali possono anche effettuare una verifica della situazione fiscale di tale contribuente. La Corte statuisce pertanto che l'obbligo di notifica stabilito dalla Direttiva viola il diritto al rispetto delle comunicazioni tra un avvocato e il proprio cliente.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n <\/main>\r\n\r\n<\/body>\r\n<\/html>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies – Petani Law & Tax Vendim i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Evrop\u00ebs \u2022 \u00c7\u00ebshtja C-694\/20 Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others Lufta kund\u00ebr planifikimit agresiv tatimor: detyrimi i avokatit p\u00ebr t\u00eb informuar nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm dhe shkel t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve me klientin e tij ose t\u00eb saj T\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb nj\u00eb planifikim t\u00eb till\u00eb, dhe vet\u00eb tatimpaguesi, i n\u00ebnshtrohen k\u00ebtij detyrimi raportimi, i cili b\u00ebn t\u00eb mundur sigurimin q\u00eb autoritetet tatimore t\u00eb informohen. Nj\u00eb Direktiv\u00eb e BE-s\u00eb parashikon se t\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb planifikimin tatimor nd\u00ebrkufitar potencialisht agresiv (marr\u00ebveshje q\u00eb mund t\u00eb \u00e7ojn\u00eb n\u00eb shmangie dhe evazion fiskal) k\u00ebrkohet t’i raportojn\u00eb ato pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore kompetente. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor Ky detyrim ka t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb me t\u00eb gjith\u00eb ata q\u00eb marrin pjes\u00eb n\u00eb dizajnimin, tregtimin, organizimin ose menaxhimin e zbatimit t\u00eb k\u00ebtij planifikimi. T\u00eb gjith\u00eb ata q\u00eb ofrojn\u00eb ndihm\u00eb ose k\u00ebshilla n\u00eb lidhje me at\u00eb planifikim, ose n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb personave t\u00eb till\u00eb, vet\u00eb tatimpaguesi gjithashtu mbulohen. Megjithat\u00eb, \u00e7do Shtet An\u00ebtar mund t’u jof\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsve nj\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtim nga ky detyrim kur ai do t\u00eb cenonte fsheht\u00ebsin\u00eb profesionale t\u00eb mbrojtur sipas ligjit t\u00eb tij komb\u00ebtar. N\u00eb rreth t\u00eb tilla, avokat\u00ebt-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs megjithat\u00eb k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb njoftojn\u00eb pa vones\u00eb \u00e7do nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs tjet\u00ebr, ose tatimpaguesin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, p\u00ebr detyrimet e lor raportuese ndaj autoriteteve kompetente. Dekreti flemand q\u00eb transpozon at\u00eb direktiv\u00eb k\u00ebshtu parashikon se, kur nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs i p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb planifikimin tatimor nd\u00ebrkufitar \u00ebsht\u00eb i lidhur nga fsheht\u00ebsia profesionale, ai ose ajo duhet t\u00eb informoj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb se ai ose ajo nuk mund ta b\u00ebj\u00eb vet\u00eb at\u00eb raportim. Dy organizata profesionale t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve soll\u00ebn padi para Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese t\u00eb Belgjik\u00ebs. N\u00eb parashtresat e tyre, \u00ebsht\u00eb e pamundur t\u00eb sigurohet informacion p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb pa shkelur fsheht\u00ebsin\u00eb profesionale nga e cila avokat\u00ebt jan\u00eb t\u00eb lidhur. Gjykata Kushtetuese e Belgjik\u00ebs k\u00ebrkon nj\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje nga Gjykata e Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb drejtim. N\u00eb vendimin e saj sot, Gjykata e Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb kujton n\u00eb radh\u00eb t\u00eb par\u00eb se Neni 7 i Kart\u00ebs s\u00eb t\u00eb Drejtave Themelore t\u00eb Bashkimit Evropian mbron konfidencialitetin e t\u00eb gjith\u00eb korrespondenc\u00ebs midis individ\u00ebve dhe siguron mbrojtje t\u00eb p\u00ebrforcuar p\u00ebr shk\u00ebmbimet midis avokat\u00ebve dhe klient\u00ebve t\u00eb tyre. Ajo mbrojtje specifike q\u00eb i jepet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve arsyetohet nga fakti se avokat\u00ebve u caktohet nj\u00eb rol themelor n\u00eb nj\u00eb shoq\u00ebri demokratike, ai i mbrojtjes s\u00eb pal\u00ebve nd\u00ebrgjyq\u00ebse. Ky rol k\u00ebrkon q\u00eb \u00e7do individ t\u00eb jet\u00eb n\u00eb gjendje t\u00eb k\u00ebrkoj\u00eb k\u00ebshilla lirisht nga avokati i tij ose i saj, nj\u00eb parim i njohur n\u00eb t\u00eb gjitha Shtetet An\u00ebtare. Fsheht\u00ebsia profesionale gjithashtu mbulon konsultimin ligjor, si p\u00ebr sa i p\u00ebrket p\u00ebrmbajtjes s\u00eb tij ashtu edhe ekzistenc\u00ebs s\u00eb tij. P\u00ebrve\u00e7 situatave jasht\u00ebzakonshme, klient\u00ebt duhet t\u00eb ken\u00eb nj\u00eb pritshm\u00ebri legjitime se, pa p\u00eblqimin e tyre, avokati i tyre nuk do t’i zbuloj\u00eb kujt se ata po e konsultojn\u00eb at\u00eb ose at\u00eb. Megjithat\u00eb, detyrimi i p\u00ebrcaktuar nga Direktiva p\u00ebr nj\u00eb avokat-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs q\u00eb i n\u00ebnshtrohet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar pa vones\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb p\u00ebr detyrimet e tyre raportuese n\u00ebnkupton se ata nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs t\u00eb tjer\u00eb b\u00ebhen t\u00eb vet\u00ebdijsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr identitetin e avokatit-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs. Ata gjithashtu b\u00ebhen t\u00eb vet\u00ebdijsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr analiz\u00ebn e tij ose t\u00eb saj se marr\u00ebveshja tatimore n\u00eb fjal\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb e raportueshme dhe p\u00ebr faktin e konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj n\u00eb lidhje me marr\u00ebveshjen. Ky detyrim p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar sjell nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrhyrje n\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve midis avokat\u00ebve dhe klient\u00ebve t\u00eb tyre, t\u00eb garantuar n\u00eb Nenin 7 t\u00eb Kart\u00ebs s\u00eb t\u00eb Drejtave Themelore. Duke qen\u00eb se nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb informojn\u00eb autoritetet tatimore kompetente p\u00ebr identitetin e avokatit dhe faktin e konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj, ky detyrim gjithashtu \u00e7on indirekt n\u00eb nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrhyrje t\u00eb dyt\u00eb n\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr fsheht\u00ebsi profesionale. M\u00eb pas Gjykata ekzaminon n\u00ebse k\u00ebto nd\u00ebrhyrje mund t\u00eb justifikohen, n\u00eb ve\u00e7anti n\u00ebse ato p\u00ebrmbushin objektivat e interesit t\u00eb p\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm t\u00eb njohura nga BE-ja dhe n\u00ebse ato jan\u00eb t\u00eb nevojshme p\u00ebr ndjekjen e atyre objektivave. Gjykata kujton se amendamenti i b\u00ebr\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2018 n\u00eb direktiv\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebn pjes\u00eb t\u00eb bashk\u00ebpunimit tatimor nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtar q\u00eb synon t\u00eb kontribuoj\u00eb n\u00eb parandalimin e rrezikut t\u00eb shmangies dhe evazionit tatimor, gj\u00eb q\u00eb p\u00ebub\u00ebn nj\u00eb nga objektivat e interesit t\u00eb p\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm t\u00eb njohura nga BE-ja. Sidoqoft\u00eb, Gjykata konsideron se detyrimi i njoftimit mbi nj\u00eb avokat q\u00eb i n\u00ebnshtrohet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr t\u00eb arritur at\u00eb objektivat. T\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb dor\u00ebzojn\u00eb at\u00eb informacion pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore kompetente. Asnj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs nuk mund t\u00eb pretendoj\u00eb se ai ose ajo ishte n\u00eb dijeni t\u00eb detyrimeve raportuese – t\u00eb cilat jan\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktuar qart\u00eb n\u00eb Direktiv\u00eb – ndaj t\u00eb cilave ai ose ajo i n\u00ebnshtrohet drejtp\u00ebrdrejt dhe individualisht. Direktiva e b\u00ebn avokatin-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs nj\u00eb person nga i cili nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb nuk mund, a priori, t\u00eb presin ndonj\u00eb iniciativ\u00eb t\u00eb aft\u00eb p\u00ebr t’i leht\u00ebsuar ata nga detyrimet e tyre raportuese. Zbulimi, nga pal\u00ebt e treta nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebse t\u00eb njoftuara, i identitetit t\u00eb avokatit-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs dhe faktit t\u00eb konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore gjithashtu nuk duket t\u00eb jet\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr ndjekjen e objektivave t\u00eb Direktiv\u00ebs. Detyrimi raportues mbi nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb q\u00eb nuk i n\u00ebnshtrohen fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale dhe, n\u00ebse nuk ka nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs t\u00eb till\u00eb, ky detyrim mbi tatimpaguesin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, sigurojn\u00eb, n\u00eb parim, q\u00eb autoritetet tatimore t\u00eb informohen. Autoritetet tatimore mund t\u00eb, pasi t\u00eb ken\u00eb marr\u00eb informacion t\u00eb till\u00eb, t\u00eb k\u00ebrkojn\u00eb informacion shtes\u00eb direkt nga tatimpaguesi p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, i cili m\u00eb pas do t\u00eb jet\u00eb n\u00eb gjendje t\u00eb konsultoj\u00eb avokatin e tij ose t\u00eb saj p\u00ebr ndihm\u00eb. Autoritetet tatimore gjithashtu mund t\u00eb kryejn\u00eb nj\u00eb auditim t\u00eb situat\u00ebs tatimore t\u00eb atij tatimpaguesi. Prandaj, Gjykata mban q\u00ebndrimin se detyrimi p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar i p\u00ebrcaktuar nga Direktiva shkel t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve midis nj\u00eb avokati dhe klientit t\u00eb tij ose saj. Combatting aggressive tax planning: the obligation for a lawyer to inform other intermediaries involved is not necessary and infringes the right to respect for communications with his<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3637,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"elementor_header_footer","format":"standard","meta":{"_thinkrank_schema_form_data":"","_thinkrank_selected_schema_type":"","_thinkrank_additional_schemas":"","_thinkrank_canonical_url":"","_thinkrank_og_title":"","_thinkrank_og_description":"","_thinkrank_og_image":"","_thinkrank_twitter_title":"","_thinkrank_twitter_description":"","_thinkrank_twitter_image":"","_thinkrank_imported_from":"","_thinkrank_focus_keywords":[],"_thinkrank_focus_keyword":"","_thinkrank_robots_meta_enabled":0,"_thinkrank_robots_meta":"[]","_thinkrank_advanced_robots_meta":"[]","_thinkrank_primary_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4290","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-petani-blog"],"yoast_head":"\n<title>Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others - Petani Law Firm<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"it_IT\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others - Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies – Petani Law & Tax Vendim i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Evrop\u00ebs \u2022 \u00c7\u00ebshtja C-694\/20 Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others Lufta kund\u00ebr planifikimit agresiv tatimor: detyrimi i avokatit p\u00ebr t\u00eb informuar nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm dhe shkel t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve me klientin e tij ose t\u00eb saj T\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb nj\u00eb planifikim t\u00eb till\u00eb, dhe vet\u00eb tatimpaguesi, i n\u00ebnshtrohen k\u00ebtij detyrimi raportimi, i cili b\u00ebn t\u00eb mundur sigurimin q\u00eb autoritetet tatimore t\u00eb informohen. Nj\u00eb Direktiv\u00eb e BE-s\u00eb parashikon se t\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb planifikimin tatimor nd\u00ebrkufitar potencialisht agresiv (marr\u00ebveshje q\u00eb mund t\u00eb \u00e7ojn\u00eb n\u00eb shmangie dhe evazion fiskal) k\u00ebrkohet t’i raportojn\u00eb ato pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore kompetente. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor Ky detyrim ka t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb me t\u00eb gjith\u00eb ata q\u00eb marrin pjes\u00eb n\u00eb dizajnimin, tregtimin, organizimin ose menaxhimin e zbatimit t\u00eb k\u00ebtij planifikimi. T\u00eb gjith\u00eb ata q\u00eb ofrojn\u00eb ndihm\u00eb ose k\u00ebshilla n\u00eb lidhje me at\u00eb planifikim, ose n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb personave t\u00eb till\u00eb, vet\u00eb tatimpaguesi gjithashtu mbulohen. Megjithat\u00eb, \u00e7do Shtet An\u00ebtar mund t’u jof\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsve nj\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtim nga ky detyrim kur ai do t\u00eb cenonte fsheht\u00ebsin\u00eb profesionale t\u00eb mbrojtur sipas ligjit t\u00eb tij komb\u00ebtar. N\u00eb rreth t\u00eb tilla, avokat\u00ebt-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs megjithat\u00eb k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb njoftojn\u00eb pa vones\u00eb \u00e7do nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs tjet\u00ebr, ose tatimpaguesin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, p\u00ebr detyrimet e lor raportuese ndaj autoriteteve kompetente. Dekreti flemand q\u00eb transpozon at\u00eb direktiv\u00eb k\u00ebshtu parashikon se, kur nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs i p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb planifikimin tatimor nd\u00ebrkufitar \u00ebsht\u00eb i lidhur nga fsheht\u00ebsia profesionale, ai ose ajo duhet t\u00eb informoj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb se ai ose ajo nuk mund ta b\u00ebj\u00eb vet\u00eb at\u00eb raportim. Dy organizata profesionale t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve soll\u00ebn padi para Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese t\u00eb Belgjik\u00ebs. N\u00eb parashtresat e tyre, \u00ebsht\u00eb e pamundur t\u00eb sigurohet informacion p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb pa shkelur fsheht\u00ebsin\u00eb profesionale nga e cila avokat\u00ebt jan\u00eb t\u00eb lidhur. Gjykata Kushtetuese e Belgjik\u00ebs k\u00ebrkon nj\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje nga Gjykata e Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb drejtim. N\u00eb vendimin e saj sot, Gjykata e Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb kujton n\u00eb radh\u00eb t\u00eb par\u00eb se Neni 7 i Kart\u00ebs s\u00eb t\u00eb Drejtave Themelore t\u00eb Bashkimit Evropian mbron konfidencialitetin e t\u00eb gjith\u00eb korrespondenc\u00ebs midis individ\u00ebve dhe siguron mbrojtje t\u00eb p\u00ebrforcuar p\u00ebr shk\u00ebmbimet midis avokat\u00ebve dhe klient\u00ebve t\u00eb tyre. Ajo mbrojtje specifike q\u00eb i jepet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve arsyetohet nga fakti se avokat\u00ebve u caktohet nj\u00eb rol themelor n\u00eb nj\u00eb shoq\u00ebri demokratike, ai i mbrojtjes s\u00eb pal\u00ebve nd\u00ebrgjyq\u00ebse. Ky rol k\u00ebrkon q\u00eb \u00e7do individ t\u00eb jet\u00eb n\u00eb gjendje t\u00eb k\u00ebrkoj\u00eb k\u00ebshilla lirisht nga avokati i tij ose i saj, nj\u00eb parim i njohur n\u00eb t\u00eb gjitha Shtetet An\u00ebtare. Fsheht\u00ebsia profesionale gjithashtu mbulon konsultimin ligjor, si p\u00ebr sa i p\u00ebrket p\u00ebrmbajtjes s\u00eb tij ashtu edhe ekzistenc\u00ebs s\u00eb tij. P\u00ebrve\u00e7 situatave jasht\u00ebzakonshme, klient\u00ebt duhet t\u00eb ken\u00eb nj\u00eb pritshm\u00ebri legjitime se, pa p\u00eblqimin e tyre, avokati i tyre nuk do t’i zbuloj\u00eb kujt se ata po e konsultojn\u00eb at\u00eb ose at\u00eb. Megjithat\u00eb, detyrimi i p\u00ebrcaktuar nga Direktiva p\u00ebr nj\u00eb avokat-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs q\u00eb i n\u00ebnshtrohet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar pa vones\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb p\u00ebr detyrimet e tyre raportuese n\u00ebnkupton se ata nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs t\u00eb tjer\u00eb b\u00ebhen t\u00eb vet\u00ebdijsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr identitetin e avokatit-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs. Ata gjithashtu b\u00ebhen t\u00eb vet\u00ebdijsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr analiz\u00ebn e tij ose t\u00eb saj se marr\u00ebveshja tatimore n\u00eb fjal\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb e raportueshme dhe p\u00ebr faktin e konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj n\u00eb lidhje me marr\u00ebveshjen. Ky detyrim p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar sjell nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrhyrje n\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve midis avokat\u00ebve dhe klient\u00ebve t\u00eb tyre, t\u00eb garantuar n\u00eb Nenin 7 t\u00eb Kart\u00ebs s\u00eb t\u00eb Drejtave Themelore. Duke qen\u00eb se nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb informojn\u00eb autoritetet tatimore kompetente p\u00ebr identitetin e avokatit dhe faktin e konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj, ky detyrim gjithashtu \u00e7on indirekt n\u00eb nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrhyrje t\u00eb dyt\u00eb n\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr fsheht\u00ebsi profesionale. M\u00eb pas Gjykata ekzaminon n\u00ebse k\u00ebto nd\u00ebrhyrje mund t\u00eb justifikohen, n\u00eb ve\u00e7anti n\u00ebse ato p\u00ebrmbushin objektivat e interesit t\u00eb p\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm t\u00eb njohura nga BE-ja dhe n\u00ebse ato jan\u00eb t\u00eb nevojshme p\u00ebr ndjekjen e atyre objektivave. Gjykata kujton se amendamenti i b\u00ebr\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2018 n\u00eb direktiv\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebn pjes\u00eb t\u00eb bashk\u00ebpunimit tatimor nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtar q\u00eb synon t\u00eb kontribuoj\u00eb n\u00eb parandalimin e rrezikut t\u00eb shmangies dhe evazionit tatimor, gj\u00eb q\u00eb p\u00ebub\u00ebn nj\u00eb nga objektivat e interesit t\u00eb p\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm t\u00eb njohura nga BE-ja. Sidoqoft\u00eb, Gjykata konsideron se detyrimi i njoftimit mbi nj\u00eb avokat q\u00eb i n\u00ebnshtrohet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr t\u00eb arritur at\u00eb objektivat. T\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb dor\u00ebzojn\u00eb at\u00eb informacion pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore kompetente. Asnj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs nuk mund t\u00eb pretendoj\u00eb se ai ose ajo ishte n\u00eb dijeni t\u00eb detyrimeve raportuese – t\u00eb cilat jan\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktuar qart\u00eb n\u00eb Direktiv\u00eb – ndaj t\u00eb cilave ai ose ajo i n\u00ebnshtrohet drejtp\u00ebrdrejt dhe individualisht. Direktiva e b\u00ebn avokatin-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs nj\u00eb person nga i cili nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb nuk mund, a priori, t\u00eb presin ndonj\u00eb iniciativ\u00eb t\u00eb aft\u00eb p\u00ebr t’i leht\u00ebsuar ata nga detyrimet e tyre raportuese. Zbulimi, nga pal\u00ebt e treta nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebse t\u00eb njoftuara, i identitetit t\u00eb avokatit-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs dhe faktit t\u00eb konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore gjithashtu nuk duket t\u00eb jet\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr ndjekjen e objektivave t\u00eb Direktiv\u00ebs. Detyrimi raportues mbi nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb q\u00eb nuk i n\u00ebnshtrohen fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale dhe, n\u00ebse nuk ka nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs t\u00eb till\u00eb, ky detyrim mbi tatimpaguesin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, sigurojn\u00eb, n\u00eb parim, q\u00eb autoritetet tatimore t\u00eb informohen. Autoritetet tatimore mund t\u00eb, pasi t\u00eb ken\u00eb marr\u00eb informacion t\u00eb till\u00eb, t\u00eb k\u00ebrkojn\u00eb informacion shtes\u00eb direkt nga tatimpaguesi p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, i cili m\u00eb pas do t\u00eb jet\u00eb n\u00eb gjendje t\u00eb konsultoj\u00eb avokatin e tij ose t\u00eb saj p\u00ebr ndihm\u00eb. Autoritetet tatimore gjithashtu mund t\u00eb kryejn\u00eb nj\u00eb auditim t\u00eb situat\u00ebs tatimore t\u00eb atij tatimpaguesi. Prandaj, Gjykata mban q\u00ebndrimin se detyrimi p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar i p\u00ebrcaktuar nga Direktiva shkel t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve midis nj\u00eb avokati dhe klientit t\u00eb tij ose saj. Combatting aggressive tax planning: the obligation for a lawyer to inform other intermediaries involved is not necessary and infringes the right to respect for communications with his\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-13T08:40:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-13T08:44:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Stafi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Scritto da\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Stafi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Tempo di lettura stimato\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minuti\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\"},\"headline\":\"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\\\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-13T08:40:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-13T08:44:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2967,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"articleSection\":[\"Petani Blog\"],\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/\",\"name\":\"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\\\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others - Petani Law Firm\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-13T08:40:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-13T08:44:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":2560},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\\\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/\",\"name\":\"Petani Law Firm\",\"description\":\"Law Firm in Durr\u00ebs\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Petani Law Firm\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/logo.png\",\"width\":500,\"height\":155,\"caption\":\"Petani Law Firm\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\",\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"caption\":\"Stafi\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/it\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others - Petani Law Firm","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/","og_locale":"it_IT","og_type":"article","og_title":"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others - Petani Law Firm","og_description":"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies – Petani Law & Tax Vendim i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Evrop\u00ebs \u2022 \u00c7\u00ebshtja C-694\/20 Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others Lufta kund\u00ebr planifikimit agresiv tatimor: detyrimi i avokatit p\u00ebr t\u00eb informuar nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm dhe shkel t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve me klientin e tij ose t\u00eb saj T\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb nj\u00eb planifikim t\u00eb till\u00eb, dhe vet\u00eb tatimpaguesi, i n\u00ebnshtrohen k\u00ebtij detyrimi raportimi, i cili b\u00ebn t\u00eb mundur sigurimin q\u00eb autoritetet tatimore t\u00eb informohen. Nj\u00eb Direktiv\u00eb e BE-s\u00eb parashikon se t\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb planifikimin tatimor nd\u00ebrkufitar potencialisht agresiv (marr\u00ebveshje q\u00eb mund t\u00eb \u00e7ojn\u00eb n\u00eb shmangie dhe evazion fiskal) k\u00ebrkohet t’i raportojn\u00eb ato pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore kompetente. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor Ky detyrim ka t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb me t\u00eb gjith\u00eb ata q\u00eb marrin pjes\u00eb n\u00eb dizajnimin, tregtimin, organizimin ose menaxhimin e zbatimit t\u00eb k\u00ebtij planifikimi. T\u00eb gjith\u00eb ata q\u00eb ofrojn\u00eb ndihm\u00eb ose k\u00ebshilla n\u00eb lidhje me at\u00eb planifikim, ose n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb personave t\u00eb till\u00eb, vet\u00eb tatimpaguesi gjithashtu mbulohen. Megjithat\u00eb, \u00e7do Shtet An\u00ebtar mund t’u jof\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsve nj\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtim nga ky detyrim kur ai do t\u00eb cenonte fsheht\u00ebsin\u00eb profesionale t\u00eb mbrojtur sipas ligjit t\u00eb tij komb\u00ebtar. N\u00eb rreth t\u00eb tilla, avokat\u00ebt-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs megjithat\u00eb k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb njoftojn\u00eb pa vones\u00eb \u00e7do nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs tjet\u00ebr, ose tatimpaguesin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, p\u00ebr detyrimet e lor raportuese ndaj autoriteteve kompetente. Dekreti flemand q\u00eb transpozon at\u00eb direktiv\u00eb k\u00ebshtu parashikon se, kur nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs i p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb planifikimin tatimor nd\u00ebrkufitar \u00ebsht\u00eb i lidhur nga fsheht\u00ebsia profesionale, ai ose ajo duhet t\u00eb informoj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb se ai ose ajo nuk mund ta b\u00ebj\u00eb vet\u00eb at\u00eb raportim. Dy organizata profesionale t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve soll\u00ebn padi para Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese t\u00eb Belgjik\u00ebs. N\u00eb parashtresat e tyre, \u00ebsht\u00eb e pamundur t\u00eb sigurohet informacion p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb pa shkelur fsheht\u00ebsin\u00eb profesionale nga e cila avokat\u00ebt jan\u00eb t\u00eb lidhur. Gjykata Kushtetuese e Belgjik\u00ebs k\u00ebrkon nj\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje nga Gjykata e Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb drejtim. N\u00eb vendimin e saj sot, Gjykata e Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb kujton n\u00eb radh\u00eb t\u00eb par\u00eb se Neni 7 i Kart\u00ebs s\u00eb t\u00eb Drejtave Themelore t\u00eb Bashkimit Evropian mbron konfidencialitetin e t\u00eb gjith\u00eb korrespondenc\u00ebs midis individ\u00ebve dhe siguron mbrojtje t\u00eb p\u00ebrforcuar p\u00ebr shk\u00ebmbimet midis avokat\u00ebve dhe klient\u00ebve t\u00eb tyre. Ajo mbrojtje specifike q\u00eb i jepet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve arsyetohet nga fakti se avokat\u00ebve u caktohet nj\u00eb rol themelor n\u00eb nj\u00eb shoq\u00ebri demokratike, ai i mbrojtjes s\u00eb pal\u00ebve nd\u00ebrgjyq\u00ebse. Ky rol k\u00ebrkon q\u00eb \u00e7do individ t\u00eb jet\u00eb n\u00eb gjendje t\u00eb k\u00ebrkoj\u00eb k\u00ebshilla lirisht nga avokati i tij ose i saj, nj\u00eb parim i njohur n\u00eb t\u00eb gjitha Shtetet An\u00ebtare. Fsheht\u00ebsia profesionale gjithashtu mbulon konsultimin ligjor, si p\u00ebr sa i p\u00ebrket p\u00ebrmbajtjes s\u00eb tij ashtu edhe ekzistenc\u00ebs s\u00eb tij. P\u00ebrve\u00e7 situatave jasht\u00ebzakonshme, klient\u00ebt duhet t\u00eb ken\u00eb nj\u00eb pritshm\u00ebri legjitime se, pa p\u00eblqimin e tyre, avokati i tyre nuk do t’i zbuloj\u00eb kujt se ata po e konsultojn\u00eb at\u00eb ose at\u00eb. Megjithat\u00eb, detyrimi i p\u00ebrcaktuar nga Direktiva p\u00ebr nj\u00eb avokat-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs q\u00eb i n\u00ebnshtrohet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar pa vones\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb p\u00ebr detyrimet e tyre raportuese n\u00ebnkupton se ata nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs t\u00eb tjer\u00eb b\u00ebhen t\u00eb vet\u00ebdijsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr identitetin e avokatit-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs. Ata gjithashtu b\u00ebhen t\u00eb vet\u00ebdijsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr analiz\u00ebn e tij ose t\u00eb saj se marr\u00ebveshja tatimore n\u00eb fjal\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb e raportueshme dhe p\u00ebr faktin e konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj n\u00eb lidhje me marr\u00ebveshjen. Ky detyrim p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar sjell nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrhyrje n\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve midis avokat\u00ebve dhe klient\u00ebve t\u00eb tyre, t\u00eb garantuar n\u00eb Nenin 7 t\u00eb Kart\u00ebs s\u00eb t\u00eb Drejtave Themelore. Duke qen\u00eb se nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb informojn\u00eb autoritetet tatimore kompetente p\u00ebr identitetin e avokatit dhe faktin e konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj, ky detyrim gjithashtu \u00e7on indirekt n\u00eb nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrhyrje t\u00eb dyt\u00eb n\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr fsheht\u00ebsi profesionale. M\u00eb pas Gjykata ekzaminon n\u00ebse k\u00ebto nd\u00ebrhyrje mund t\u00eb justifikohen, n\u00eb ve\u00e7anti n\u00ebse ato p\u00ebrmbushin objektivat e interesit t\u00eb p\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm t\u00eb njohura nga BE-ja dhe n\u00ebse ato jan\u00eb t\u00eb nevojshme p\u00ebr ndjekjen e atyre objektivave. Gjykata kujton se amendamenti i b\u00ebr\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2018 n\u00eb direktiv\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebn pjes\u00eb t\u00eb bashk\u00ebpunimit tatimor nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtar q\u00eb synon t\u00eb kontribuoj\u00eb n\u00eb parandalimin e rrezikut t\u00eb shmangies dhe evazionit tatimor, gj\u00eb q\u00eb p\u00ebub\u00ebn nj\u00eb nga objektivat e interesit t\u00eb p\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm t\u00eb njohura nga BE-ja. Sidoqoft\u00eb, Gjykata konsideron se detyrimi i njoftimit mbi nj\u00eb avokat q\u00eb i n\u00ebnshtrohet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr t\u00eb arritur at\u00eb objektivat. T\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb dor\u00ebzojn\u00eb at\u00eb informacion pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore kompetente. Asnj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs nuk mund t\u00eb pretendoj\u00eb se ai ose ajo ishte n\u00eb dijeni t\u00eb detyrimeve raportuese – t\u00eb cilat jan\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktuar qart\u00eb n\u00eb Direktiv\u00eb – ndaj t\u00eb cilave ai ose ajo i n\u00ebnshtrohet drejtp\u00ebrdrejt dhe individualisht. Direktiva e b\u00ebn avokatin-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs nj\u00eb person nga i cili nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb nuk mund, a priori, t\u00eb presin ndonj\u00eb iniciativ\u00eb t\u00eb aft\u00eb p\u00ebr t’i leht\u00ebsuar ata nga detyrimet e tyre raportuese. Zbulimi, nga pal\u00ebt e treta nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebse t\u00eb njoftuara, i identitetit t\u00eb avokatit-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs dhe faktit t\u00eb konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore gjithashtu nuk duket t\u00eb jet\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr ndjekjen e objektivave t\u00eb Direktiv\u00ebs. Detyrimi raportues mbi nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb q\u00eb nuk i n\u00ebnshtrohen fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale dhe, n\u00ebse nuk ka nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs t\u00eb till\u00eb, ky detyrim mbi tatimpaguesin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, sigurojn\u00eb, n\u00eb parim, q\u00eb autoritetet tatimore t\u00eb informohen. Autoritetet tatimore mund t\u00eb, pasi t\u00eb ken\u00eb marr\u00eb informacion t\u00eb till\u00eb, t\u00eb k\u00ebrkojn\u00eb informacion shtes\u00eb direkt nga tatimpaguesi p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, i cili m\u00eb pas do t\u00eb jet\u00eb n\u00eb gjendje t\u00eb konsultoj\u00eb avokatin e tij ose t\u00eb saj p\u00ebr ndihm\u00eb. Autoritetet tatimore gjithashtu mund t\u00eb kryejn\u00eb nj\u00eb auditim t\u00eb situat\u00ebs tatimore t\u00eb atij tatimpaguesi. Prandaj, Gjykata mban q\u00ebndrimin se detyrimi p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar i p\u00ebrcaktuar nga Direktiva shkel t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve midis nj\u00eb avokati dhe klientit t\u00eb tij ose saj. Combatting aggressive tax planning: the obligation for a lawyer to inform other intermediaries involved is not necessary and infringes the right to respect for communications with his","og_url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/","og_site_name":"Petani Law Firm","article_published_time":"2026-08-13T08:40:57+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-08-13T08:44:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":2560,"url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"Stafi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Scritto da":"Stafi","Tempo di lettura stimato":"13 minuti"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/"},"author":{"name":"Stafi","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90"},"headline":"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others","datePublished":"2026-08-13T08:40:57+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-13T08:44:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/"},"wordCount":2967,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","articleSection":["Petani Blog"],"inLanguage":"it-IT","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/","name":"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others - Petani Law Firm","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","datePublished":"2026-08-13T08:40:57+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-13T08:44:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"it-IT","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"it-IT","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","width":2560,"height":2560},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/","name":"Petani Law Firm","description":"Law Firm in Durr\u00ebs","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"it-IT"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization","name":"Petani Law Firm","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"it-IT","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/logo.png","width":500,"height":155,"caption":"Petani Law Firm"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90","name":"Stafi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"it-IT","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","caption":"Stafi"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com"],"url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4290","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4290"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4290\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4297,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4290\/revisions\/4297"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3637"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4290"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4290"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4290"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n \r\n Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies - Petani Law & Tax<\/title>\r\n <script src=\"https:\/\/cdn.tailwindcss.com\"><\/script>\r\n <link href=\"https:\/\/fonts.googleapis.com\/css2?family=Inter:wght@300;400;500;600;700&family=Playfair+Display:ital,wght@0,400;0,600;0,700;1,400;1,700&display=swap\" rel=\"stylesheet\">\r\n \r\n <style>\r\n :root {\r\n --gold: #c5a059;\r\n --gold-light: #dfc493;\r\n --espresso: #1a0f0a;\r\n --brown-deep: #2c1810;\r\n --cream: #fdfcf9;\r\n }\r\n body { font-family: 'Inter', sans-serif; background-color: var(--cream); color: var(--espresso); line-height: 1.8; }\r\n script { display: none; }\r\n .serif { font-family: 'Playfair Display', serif; }\r\n\r\n .drop-cap::first-letter { float: left; font-family: 'Playfair Display', serif; font-size: 4.5rem; line-height: 3.5rem; padding-top: 8px; padding-right: 12px; color: var(--gold); font-weight: 700; }\r\n p { margin-bottom: 1.5rem; font-size: 1.125rem; color: #333; }\r\n \r\n .case-card { background-color: var(--brown-deep) !important; color: #ffffff !important; border-left: 4px solid var(--gold); }\r\n .case-card p, .case-card h3 { color: #ffffff !important; }\r\n\r\n \/* TranslatePress Automatic Display Rules *\/\r\n .tp-lang-block { display: none; }\r\n\r\n \/* Show Albanian when TranslatePress language is SQ *\/\r\n body.translatepress-sq_AL .tp-lang-sq,\r\n html[lang=\"sq\"] .tp-lang-sq { display: block; }\r\n\r\n \/* Show English when TranslatePress language is EN *\/\r\n body.translatepress-en_US .tp-lang-en,\r\n body.translatepress-en_GB .tp-lang-en,\r\n html[lang=\"en\"] .tp-lang-en { display: block; }\r\n\r\n \/* Show Italian when TranslatePress language is IT *\/\r\n body.translatepress-it_IT .tp-lang-it,\r\n html[lang=\"it\"] .tp-lang-it { display: block; }\r\n <\/style>\r\n<\/head>\r\n<body class=\"antialiased\">\r\n\r\n <main class=\"max-w-4xl mx-auto px-6 py-12\">\r\n \r\n \r\n <div class=\"relative w-full h-[400px] rounded-3xl overflow-hidden shadow-2xl mb-12 border-b-4 border-[var(--gold)]\">\r\n <img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/images.pexels.com\/photos\/6077447\/pexels-photo-6077447.jpeg\" alt=\"CJEU Judgment on Legal Professional Privilege and Tax Planning\" class=\"w-full h-full object-cover object-center brightness-[0.65]\">\r\n <div class=\"absolute inset-0 bg-gradient-to-t from-black\/90 to-transparent\"><\/div>\r\n <div class=\"absolute bottom-8 left-8 text-white pr-8\">\r\n <p class=\"text-[var(--gold)] tracking-widest uppercase font-semibold text-sm mb-2\">Vendim i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Evrop\u00ebs \u2022 \u00c7\u00ebshtja C-694\/20<\/p>\r\n <h1 class=\"serif text-4xl font-bold leading-tight\">Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others<\/h1>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/div>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article class=\"tp-lang-block tp-lang-sq\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">Lufta kund\u00ebr planifikimit agresiv tatimor: detyrimi i avokatit p\u00ebr t\u00eb informuar nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm dhe shkel t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve me klientin e tij ose t\u00eb saj<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">T\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb nj\u00eb planifikim t\u00eb till\u00eb, dhe vet\u00eb tatimpaguesi, i n\u00ebnshtrohen k\u00ebtij detyrimi raportimi, i cili b\u00ebn t\u00eb mundur sigurimin q\u00eb autoritetet tatimore t\u00eb informohen. Nj\u00eb Direktiv\u00eb e BE-s\u00eb parashikon se t\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb planifikimin tatimor nd\u00ebrkufitar potencialisht agresiv (marr\u00ebveshje q\u00eb mund t\u00eb \u00e7ojn\u00eb n\u00eb shmangie dhe evazion fiskal) k\u00ebrkohet t'i raportojn\u00eb ato pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore kompetente.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor<\/h3>\r\n <p>Ky detyrim ka t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb me t\u00eb gjith\u00eb ata q\u00eb marrin pjes\u00eb n\u00eb dizajnimin, tregtimin, organizimin ose menaxhimin e zbatimit t\u00eb k\u00ebtij planifikimi. T\u00eb gjith\u00eb ata q\u00eb ofrojn\u00eb ndihm\u00eb ose k\u00ebshilla n\u00eb lidhje me at\u00eb planifikim, ose n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb personave t\u00eb till\u00eb, vet\u00eb tatimpaguesi gjithashtu mbulohen. Megjithat\u00eb, \u00e7do Shtet An\u00ebtar mund t'u jof\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsve nj\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtim nga ky detyrim kur ai do t\u00eb cenonte fsheht\u00ebsin\u00eb profesionale t\u00eb mbrojtur sipas ligjit t\u00eb tij komb\u00ebtar. N\u00eb rreth t\u00eb tilla, avokat\u00ebt-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs megjithat\u00eb k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb njoftojn\u00eb pa vones\u00eb \u00e7do nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs tjet\u00ebr, ose tatimpaguesin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, p\u00ebr detyrimet e lor raportuese ndaj autoriteteve kompetente.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Dekreti flemand q\u00eb transpozon at\u00eb direktiv\u00eb k\u00ebshtu parashikon se, kur nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs i p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb planifikimin tatimor nd\u00ebrkufitar \u00ebsht\u00eb i lidhur nga fsheht\u00ebsia profesionale, ai ose ajo duhet t\u00eb informoj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb se ai ose ajo nuk mund ta b\u00ebj\u00eb vet\u00eb at\u00eb raportim. Dy organizata profesionale t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve soll\u00ebn padi para Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese t\u00eb Belgjik\u00ebs. N\u00eb parashtresat e tyre, \u00ebsht\u00eb e pamundur t\u00eb sigurohet informacion p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb pa shkelur fsheht\u00ebsin\u00eb profesionale nga e cila avokat\u00ebt jan\u00eb t\u00eb lidhur. Gjykata Kushtetuese e Belgjik\u00ebs k\u00ebrkon nj\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje nga Gjykata e Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb drejtim.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">N\u00eb vendimin e saj sot, Gjykata e Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb kujton n\u00eb radh\u00eb t\u00eb par\u00eb se Neni 7 i Kart\u00ebs s\u00eb t\u00eb Drejtave Themelore t\u00eb Bashkimit Evropian mbron konfidencialitetin e t\u00eb gjith\u00eb korrespondenc\u00ebs midis individ\u00ebve dhe siguron mbrojtje t\u00eb p\u00ebrforcuar p\u00ebr shk\u00ebmbimet midis avokat\u00ebve dhe klient\u00ebve t\u00eb tyre. Ajo mbrojtje specifike q\u00eb i jepet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve arsyetohet nga fakti se avokat\u00ebve u caktohet nj\u00eb rol themelor n\u00eb nj\u00eb shoq\u00ebri demokratike, ai i mbrojtjes s\u00eb pal\u00ebve nd\u00ebrgjyq\u00ebse. Ky rol k\u00ebrkon q\u00eb \u00e7do individ t\u00eb jet\u00eb n\u00eb gjendje t\u00eb k\u00ebrkoj\u00eb k\u00ebshilla lirisht nga avokati i tij ose i saj, nj\u00eb parim i njohur n\u00eb t\u00eb gjitha Shtetet An\u00ebtare. Fsheht\u00ebsia profesionale gjithashtu mbulon konsultimin ligjor, si p\u00ebr sa i p\u00ebrket p\u00ebrmbajtjes s\u00eb tij ashtu edhe ekzistenc\u00ebs s\u00eb tij.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">P\u00ebrve\u00e7 situatave jasht\u00ebzakonshme, klient\u00ebt duhet t\u00eb ken\u00eb nj\u00eb pritshm\u00ebri legjitime se, pa p\u00eblqimin e tyre, avokati i tyre nuk do t'i zbuloj\u00eb kujt se ata po e konsultojn\u00eb at\u00eb ose at\u00eb. Megjithat\u00eb, detyrimi i p\u00ebrcaktuar nga Direktiva p\u00ebr nj\u00eb avokat-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs q\u00eb i n\u00ebnshtrohet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar pa vones\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb p\u00ebr detyrimet e tyre raportuese n\u00ebnkupton se ata nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs t\u00eb tjer\u00eb b\u00ebhen t\u00eb vet\u00ebdijsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr identitetin e avokatit-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs. Ata gjithashtu b\u00ebhen t\u00eb vet\u00ebdijsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr analiz\u00ebn e tij ose t\u00eb saj se marr\u00ebveshja tatimore n\u00eb fjal\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb e raportueshme dhe p\u00ebr faktin e konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj n\u00eb lidhje me marr\u00ebveshjen.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Ky detyrim p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar sjell nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrhyrje n\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve midis avokat\u00ebve dhe klient\u00ebve t\u00eb tyre, t\u00eb garantuar n\u00eb Nenin 7 t\u00eb Kart\u00ebs s\u00eb t\u00eb Drejtave Themelore. Duke qen\u00eb se nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb informojn\u00eb autoritetet tatimore kompetente p\u00ebr identitetin e avokatit dhe faktin e konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj, ky detyrim gjithashtu \u00e7on indirekt n\u00eb nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrhyrje t\u00eb dyt\u00eb n\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr fsheht\u00ebsi profesionale. M\u00eb pas Gjykata ekzaminon n\u00ebse k\u00ebto nd\u00ebrhyrje mund t\u00eb justifikohen, n\u00eb ve\u00e7anti n\u00ebse ato p\u00ebrmbushin objektivat e interesit t\u00eb p\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm t\u00eb njohura nga BE-ja dhe n\u00ebse ato jan\u00eb t\u00eb nevojshme p\u00ebr ndjekjen e atyre objektivave. Gjykata kujton se amendamenti i b\u00ebr\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2018 n\u00eb direktiv\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebn pjes\u00eb t\u00eb bashk\u00ebpunimit tatimor nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtar q\u00eb synon t\u00eb kontribuoj\u00eb n\u00eb parandalimin e rrezikut t\u00eb shmangies dhe evazionit tatimor, gj\u00eb q\u00eb p\u00ebub\u00ebn nj\u00eb nga objektivat e interesit t\u00eb p\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm t\u00eb njohura nga BE-ja.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Sidoqoft\u00eb, Gjykata konsideron se detyrimi i njoftimit mbi nj\u00eb avokat q\u00eb i n\u00ebnshtrohet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr t\u00eb arritur at\u00eb objektivat. T\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb dor\u00ebzojn\u00eb at\u00eb informacion pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore kompetente. Asnj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs nuk mund t\u00eb pretendoj\u00eb se ai ose ajo ishte n\u00eb dijeni t\u00eb detyrimeve raportuese - t\u00eb cilat jan\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktuar qart\u00eb n\u00eb Direktiv\u00eb - ndaj t\u00eb cilave ai ose ajo i n\u00ebnshtrohet drejtp\u00ebrdrejt dhe individualisht. Direktiva e b\u00ebn avokatin-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs nj\u00eb person nga i cili nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb nuk mund, a priori, t\u00eb presin ndonj\u00eb iniciativ\u00eb t\u00eb aft\u00eb p\u00ebr t'i leht\u00ebsuar ata nga detyrimet e tyre raportuese.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Zbulimi, nga pal\u00ebt e treta nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebse t\u00eb njoftuara, i identitetit t\u00eb avokatit-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs dhe faktit t\u00eb konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore gjithashtu nuk duket t\u00eb jet\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr ndjekjen e objektivave t\u00eb Direktiv\u00ebs. Detyrimi raportues mbi nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb q\u00eb nuk i n\u00ebnshtrohen fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale dhe, n\u00ebse nuk ka nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs t\u00eb till\u00eb, ky detyrim mbi tatimpaguesin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, sigurojn\u00eb, n\u00eb parim, q\u00eb autoritetet tatimore t\u00eb informohen. Autoritetet tatimore mund t\u00eb, pasi t\u00eb ken\u00eb marr\u00eb informacion t\u00eb till\u00eb, t\u00eb k\u00ebrkojn\u00eb informacion shtes\u00eb direkt nga tatimpaguesi p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, i cili m\u00eb pas do t\u00eb jet\u00eb n\u00eb gjendje t\u00eb konsultoj\u00eb avokatin e tij ose t\u00eb saj p\u00ebr ndihm\u00eb. Autoritetet tatimore gjithashtu mund t\u00eb kryejn\u00eb nj\u00eb auditim t\u00eb situat\u00ebs tatimore t\u00eb atij tatimpaguesi. Prandaj, Gjykata mban q\u00ebndrimin se detyrimi p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar i p\u00ebrcaktuar nga Direktiva shkel t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve midis nj\u00eb avokati dhe klientit t\u00eb tij ose saj.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article class=\"tp-lang-block tp-lang-en\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">Combatting aggressive tax planning: the obligation for a lawyer to inform other intermediaries involved is not necessary and infringes the right to respect for communications with his or her client<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">All the other intermediaries involved in such planning, and the taxpayer him- or herself, are subject to that reporting obligation, which makes it possible to ensure that the tax authorities are informed An EU Directive 1 provides that all intermediaries involved in potentially aggressive cross-border tax-planning (arrangements which could lead to tax avoidance and evasion) are required to report them to the competent tax authorities.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">Case Summary & Legal Reasoning<\/h3>\r\n <p>That obligation concerns all those who participate in the design, marketing, organisation or management of the implementation of that planning. All those who provide assistance or advice in relation to that planning, or in the absence of such persons, the taxpayer him- or are also covered. However, each Member State may grant intermediaries a waiver from that obligation where it would breach legal professional privilege protected under its national law. In such circumstances, lawyer-intermediaries are however required to notify without delay any other intermediary, or the relevant taxpayer, of their reporting obligations vis-\u00e0-vis the competent authorities.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">The Flemish decree transposing that directive thus provides that, when an intermediary involved in cross-border tax planning is bound by legal professional privilege, he or she must inform the other intermediaries that he or she cannot make that report him- or herself. Two lawyers' professional organisations brought actions before the Belgian Constitutional Court. In their submission, it is impossible to provide information to other intermediaries without breaching the legal professional privilege by which lawyers are bound. The Belgian Constitutional Court seeks an answer from the Court of Justice in that regard.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">In its judgment today, the Court of Justice recalls first of all that Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union protects the confidentiality of all correspondence between individuals and affords strengthened protection to exchanges between lawyers and their clients. That specific protection afforded to lawyers\u2019 legal professional privilege is justified by the fact that lawyers are assigned a fundamental role in a democratic society, that of defending litigants. That role requires that any individual is able to seek advice freely from his or her lawyer, a principle recognised in all Member States. Legal professional privilege also covers legal consultation, both with regard to its content and its existence.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Other than in exceptional situations, clients must have a legitimate expectation that, without their consent, their lawyer 1 Council Directive 2011\/16\/EU of 15 February 2011 on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77\/799\/EEC (OJ 2011 L 64, p. 1), as amended by Council Directive (EU) 2018\/822 of 25 May 2018 (OJ 2018 L 139, p. 1). Communications Directorate Press and Information Unit curia.europa.eu will not disclose to anyone that they are consulting him or her. However, the obligation laid down by the Directive 2 for a lawyer-intermediary subject to legal professional privilege to notify without delay other intermediaries of their reporting obligations implies that those other intermediaries become aware of the identity of the lawyer-intermediary.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">They also become aware of his or her analysis that the tax arrangement at issue is reportable and of his or her having been consulted in connection with the arrangement. That obligation to notify entails an interference with the right to respect for communications between lawyers and their clients, guaranteed in Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Given that other intermediaries are required to inform the competent tax authorities of the identity of the lawyer and of his or her having been consulted, that obligation also leads indirectly to a second interference with the right to legal professional privilege. The Court then examines whether those interferences may be justified, in particular whether they meet objectives of general interest recognised by the EU and whether they are necessary for the pursuit of those objectives. The Court recalls that the amendment made in 2018 to the directive forms part of international tax cooperation aimed at contributing to the prevention of the risk of tax avoidance and evasion, which constitutes one of the objectives of general interest recognised by the EU.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">The Court considers however that the notification obligation on a lawyer subject to legal professional privilege is not necessary in order to attain that objective. All intermediaries are required to file that information with the competent tax authorities. No intermediary can claim that he or she was unaware of the reporting obligations - which are clearly set out in the Directive - to which he or she is directly and individually subject. The Directive makes a lawyer-intermediary a person from whom other intermediaries cannot, a priori, expect any initiative capable of relieving them of their own reporting obligations.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">The disclosure, by notified intermediary third parties, of the identity of the lawyer-intermediary and of his or her having been consulted to the tax authorities also does not appear to be necessary for the pursuit of the objectives of the Directive. The reporting obligation on other intermediaries who are not subject to legal professional privilege and, if there are no such intermediaries, that obligation on the relevant taxpayer, ensure, in principle, that the tax authorities are informed. The tax authorities may, after receiving such information, request additional information directly from the relevant taxpayer, who will then be able to consult his or her lawyer for assistance. The tax authorities may also conduct an audit of that taxpayer\u2019s tax situation. The Court therefore holds that the obligation to notify laid down by the Directive infringes the right to respect for communications between a lawyer and his or her client.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n \r\n <article class=\"tp-lang-block tp-lang-it\">\r\n <h2 class=\"serif text-3xl text-[var(--brown-deep)] mb-8 border-b border-[var(--gold)]\/20 pb-4\">Lotta alla pianificazione fiscale aggressiva: l'obbligo per un avvocato di informare gli altri intermediari coinvolti non \u00e8 necessario e viola il diritto al rispetto delle comunicazioni con il proprio cliente<\/h2>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"drop-cap\">Tutti gli altri intermediari coinvolti in tale pianificazione, e il contribuente stesso, sono soggetti a tale obbligo di segnalazione, il che consente di garantire che le autorit\u00e0 fiscali siano informate. Una direttiva dell'UE prevede che tutti gli intermediari coinvolti in una pianificazione fiscale transfrontaliera potenzialmente aggressiva (accordi che potrebbero portare all'elusione e all'evasione fiscale) siano tenuti a segnalarli alle autorit\u00e0 fiscali competenti.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <div class=\"case-card p-8 rounded-2xl mb-10 shadow-lg\">\r\n <h3 class=\"serif text-xl font-bold mb-4\">Sintesi del Caso e Motivazione Giuridica<\/h3>\r\n <p>Tale obbligo riguarda tutti coloro che partecipano alla progettazione, commercializzazione, organizzazione o gestione dell'attuazione di tale pianificazione. Sono compresi anche tutti coloro che forniscono assistenza o consulenza in relazione a tale pianificazione o, in mancanza di tali persone, lo stesso contribuente. Tuttavia, ciascuno Stato membro pu\u00f2 concedere agli intermediari una deroga a tale obbligo qualora ci\u00f2 violi il segreto professionale protetto dal suo diritto nazionale. In tali circostanze, gli avvocati-intermediari sono tuttavia tenuti a notificare senza indugio a qualsiasi altro intermediario, o al contribuente interessato, i loro obblighi di segnalazione nei confronti delle autorit\u00e0 competenti.<\/p>\r\n \r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Il decreto fiammingo che recepisce tale direttiva prevede quindi che, quando un intermediario coinvolto nella pianificazione fiscale transfrontaliera \u00e8 vincolato dal segreto professionale, egli debba informare gli altri intermediari che non pu\u00f2 effettuare tale segnalazione in prima persona. Due organizzazioni professionali di avvocati hanno adito la Corte costituzionale belga. A loro avviso, \u00e8 impossibile fornire informazioni ad altri intermediari senza violare il segreto professionale a cui gli avvocati sono vincolati. La Corte costituzionale belga chiede una risposta alla Corte di Giustizia a tale riguardo.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Nella sua sentenza odierna, la Corte di giustizia ricorda anzitutto che l'articolo 7 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell'Unione europea tutela la riservatezza di tutte le corrispondenze tra individui e garantisce una protezione rafforzata agli scambi tra gli avvocati e i loro clienti. Tale specifica protezione accordata al segreto professionale degli avvocati \u00e8 giustificata dal fatto che agli avvocati \u00e8 assegnato un ruolo fondamentale in una societ\u00e0 democratica, quello di difendere i litigaretti. Tale ruolo richiede che qualsiasi individuo sia in grado di chiedere liberamente consiglio al proprio avvocato, principio riconosciuto in tutti gli Stati membri. Il segreto professionale copre anche la consultazione legale, sia per quanto riguarda il suo contenuto che la sua esistenza.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Salvo situazioni eccezionali, i clienti devono avere il legittimo affidamento che, senza il loro consenso, il loro avvocato non riveler\u00e0 a nessuno che lo stanno consultando. Tuttavia, l'obbligo stabilito dalla Direttiva per un avvocato-intermediario soggetto al segreto professionale di notificare senza indugio agli altri intermediari i loro obblighi di segnalazione implica che tali altri intermediari vengano a conoscenza dell'identit\u00e0 dell'avvocato-intermediario.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">Essi vengono inoltre a conoscenza della sua analisi secondo cui l'accordo fiscale in questione \u00e8 passibile di segnalazione e del fatto che egli \u00e8 stato consultato in relazione a tale accordo. Tale obbligo di notifica comporta un'interferenza con il diritto al rispetto delle comunicazioni tra avvocati e clienti, garantito dall'articolo 7 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali. Poich\u00e9 gli altri intermediari sono tenuti a informare le autorit\u00e0 fiscali competenti dell'identit\u00e0 dell'avvocato e del fatto di essere stati consultati, tale obbligo porta indirettamente anche a una seconda interferenza con il diritto al segreto professionale. La Corte esamina quindi se tali interferenze possano essere giustificate, in particolare se rispondano a obiettivi di interesse generale riconosciuti dall'UE e se siano necessarie per il perseguimento di tali obiettivi. La Corte ricorda che la modifica apportata nel 2018 alla direttiva si inserisce nella cooperazione fiscale internazionale volta a contribuire alla prevenzione del rischio di elusione ed evasione fiscale, che costituisce uno degli obiettivi di interesse generale riconosciuti dall'UE.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">La Corte ritiene tuttavia che l'obbligo di notifica a carico di un avvocato soggetto al segreto professionale non sia necessario per raggiungere tale obiettivo. Tutti gli intermediari sono tenuti a presentare tali informazioni alle autorit\u00e0 fiscali competenti. Nessun intermediario pu\u00f2 pretendere di non essere a conoscenza degli obblighi di segnalazione - chiaramente stabiliti nella Direttiva - ai quali \u00e8 direttamente e individualmente soggetto. La Direttiva fa di un avvocato-intermediario una persona da cui gli altri intermediari non possono, a priori, aspettarsi alcuna iniziativa capace di solleverli dai loro stessi obblighi di segnalazione.<\/p>\r\n\r\n <p class=\"mt-4\">La divulgazione, da parte di terzi intermediari notificati, dell'identit\u00e0 dell'avvocato-intermediario e del fatto di essere stato consultato alle autorit\u00e0 fiscali non appare inoltre necessaria per il perseguimento degli obiettivi della Direttiva. L'obbligo di segnalazione a carico di altri intermediari non soggetti al segreto professionale e, in mancanza di tali intermediari, tale obbligo a carico del contribuente interessato, garantiscono, in linea di principio, che le autorit\u00e0 fiscali siano informate. Le autorit\u00e0 fiscali possono, dopo aver ricevuto tali informazioni, richiedere informazioni supplementari direttamente al contribuente interessato, il quale potr\u00e0 quindi consultare il proprio avvocato per assistenza. Le autorit\u00e0 fiscali possono anche effettuare una verifica della situazione fiscale di tale contribuente. La Corte statuisce pertanto che l'obbligo di notifica stabilito dalla Direttiva viola il diritto al rispetto delle comunicazioni tra un avvocato e il proprio cliente.<\/p>\r\n <\/div>\r\n <\/article>\r\n\r\n <\/main>\r\n\r\n<\/body>\r\n<\/html>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies – Petani Law & Tax Vendim i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Evrop\u00ebs \u2022 \u00c7\u00ebshtja C-694\/20 Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others Lufta kund\u00ebr planifikimit agresiv tatimor: detyrimi i avokatit p\u00ebr t\u00eb informuar nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm dhe shkel t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve me klientin e tij ose t\u00eb saj T\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb nj\u00eb planifikim t\u00eb till\u00eb, dhe vet\u00eb tatimpaguesi, i n\u00ebnshtrohen k\u00ebtij detyrimi raportimi, i cili b\u00ebn t\u00eb mundur sigurimin q\u00eb autoritetet tatimore t\u00eb informohen. Nj\u00eb Direktiv\u00eb e BE-s\u00eb parashikon se t\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb planifikimin tatimor nd\u00ebrkufitar potencialisht agresiv (marr\u00ebveshje q\u00eb mund t\u00eb \u00e7ojn\u00eb n\u00eb shmangie dhe evazion fiskal) k\u00ebrkohet t’i raportojn\u00eb ato pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore kompetente. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor Ky detyrim ka t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb me t\u00eb gjith\u00eb ata q\u00eb marrin pjes\u00eb n\u00eb dizajnimin, tregtimin, organizimin ose menaxhimin e zbatimit t\u00eb k\u00ebtij planifikimi. T\u00eb gjith\u00eb ata q\u00eb ofrojn\u00eb ndihm\u00eb ose k\u00ebshilla n\u00eb lidhje me at\u00eb planifikim, ose n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb personave t\u00eb till\u00eb, vet\u00eb tatimpaguesi gjithashtu mbulohen. Megjithat\u00eb, \u00e7do Shtet An\u00ebtar mund t’u jof\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsve nj\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtim nga ky detyrim kur ai do t\u00eb cenonte fsheht\u00ebsin\u00eb profesionale t\u00eb mbrojtur sipas ligjit t\u00eb tij komb\u00ebtar. N\u00eb rreth t\u00eb tilla, avokat\u00ebt-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs megjithat\u00eb k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb njoftojn\u00eb pa vones\u00eb \u00e7do nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs tjet\u00ebr, ose tatimpaguesin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, p\u00ebr detyrimet e lor raportuese ndaj autoriteteve kompetente. Dekreti flemand q\u00eb transpozon at\u00eb direktiv\u00eb k\u00ebshtu parashikon se, kur nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs i p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb planifikimin tatimor nd\u00ebrkufitar \u00ebsht\u00eb i lidhur nga fsheht\u00ebsia profesionale, ai ose ajo duhet t\u00eb informoj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb se ai ose ajo nuk mund ta b\u00ebj\u00eb vet\u00eb at\u00eb raportim. Dy organizata profesionale t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve soll\u00ebn padi para Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese t\u00eb Belgjik\u00ebs. N\u00eb parashtresat e tyre, \u00ebsht\u00eb e pamundur t\u00eb sigurohet informacion p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb pa shkelur fsheht\u00ebsin\u00eb profesionale nga e cila avokat\u00ebt jan\u00eb t\u00eb lidhur. Gjykata Kushtetuese e Belgjik\u00ebs k\u00ebrkon nj\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje nga Gjykata e Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb drejtim. N\u00eb vendimin e saj sot, Gjykata e Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb kujton n\u00eb radh\u00eb t\u00eb par\u00eb se Neni 7 i Kart\u00ebs s\u00eb t\u00eb Drejtave Themelore t\u00eb Bashkimit Evropian mbron konfidencialitetin e t\u00eb gjith\u00eb korrespondenc\u00ebs midis individ\u00ebve dhe siguron mbrojtje t\u00eb p\u00ebrforcuar p\u00ebr shk\u00ebmbimet midis avokat\u00ebve dhe klient\u00ebve t\u00eb tyre. Ajo mbrojtje specifike q\u00eb i jepet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve arsyetohet nga fakti se avokat\u00ebve u caktohet nj\u00eb rol themelor n\u00eb nj\u00eb shoq\u00ebri demokratike, ai i mbrojtjes s\u00eb pal\u00ebve nd\u00ebrgjyq\u00ebse. Ky rol k\u00ebrkon q\u00eb \u00e7do individ t\u00eb jet\u00eb n\u00eb gjendje t\u00eb k\u00ebrkoj\u00eb k\u00ebshilla lirisht nga avokati i tij ose i saj, nj\u00eb parim i njohur n\u00eb t\u00eb gjitha Shtetet An\u00ebtare. Fsheht\u00ebsia profesionale gjithashtu mbulon konsultimin ligjor, si p\u00ebr sa i p\u00ebrket p\u00ebrmbajtjes s\u00eb tij ashtu edhe ekzistenc\u00ebs s\u00eb tij. P\u00ebrve\u00e7 situatave jasht\u00ebzakonshme, klient\u00ebt duhet t\u00eb ken\u00eb nj\u00eb pritshm\u00ebri legjitime se, pa p\u00eblqimin e tyre, avokati i tyre nuk do t’i zbuloj\u00eb kujt se ata po e konsultojn\u00eb at\u00eb ose at\u00eb. Megjithat\u00eb, detyrimi i p\u00ebrcaktuar nga Direktiva p\u00ebr nj\u00eb avokat-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs q\u00eb i n\u00ebnshtrohet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar pa vones\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb p\u00ebr detyrimet e tyre raportuese n\u00ebnkupton se ata nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs t\u00eb tjer\u00eb b\u00ebhen t\u00eb vet\u00ebdijsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr identitetin e avokatit-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs. Ata gjithashtu b\u00ebhen t\u00eb vet\u00ebdijsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr analiz\u00ebn e tij ose t\u00eb saj se marr\u00ebveshja tatimore n\u00eb fjal\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb e raportueshme dhe p\u00ebr faktin e konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj n\u00eb lidhje me marr\u00ebveshjen. Ky detyrim p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar sjell nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrhyrje n\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve midis avokat\u00ebve dhe klient\u00ebve t\u00eb tyre, t\u00eb garantuar n\u00eb Nenin 7 t\u00eb Kart\u00ebs s\u00eb t\u00eb Drejtave Themelore. Duke qen\u00eb se nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb informojn\u00eb autoritetet tatimore kompetente p\u00ebr identitetin e avokatit dhe faktin e konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj, ky detyrim gjithashtu \u00e7on indirekt n\u00eb nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrhyrje t\u00eb dyt\u00eb n\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr fsheht\u00ebsi profesionale. M\u00eb pas Gjykata ekzaminon n\u00ebse k\u00ebto nd\u00ebrhyrje mund t\u00eb justifikohen, n\u00eb ve\u00e7anti n\u00ebse ato p\u00ebrmbushin objektivat e interesit t\u00eb p\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm t\u00eb njohura nga BE-ja dhe n\u00ebse ato jan\u00eb t\u00eb nevojshme p\u00ebr ndjekjen e atyre objektivave. Gjykata kujton se amendamenti i b\u00ebr\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2018 n\u00eb direktiv\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebn pjes\u00eb t\u00eb bashk\u00ebpunimit tatimor nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtar q\u00eb synon t\u00eb kontribuoj\u00eb n\u00eb parandalimin e rrezikut t\u00eb shmangies dhe evazionit tatimor, gj\u00eb q\u00eb p\u00ebub\u00ebn nj\u00eb nga objektivat e interesit t\u00eb p\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm t\u00eb njohura nga BE-ja. Sidoqoft\u00eb, Gjykata konsideron se detyrimi i njoftimit mbi nj\u00eb avokat q\u00eb i n\u00ebnshtrohet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr t\u00eb arritur at\u00eb objektivat. T\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb dor\u00ebzojn\u00eb at\u00eb informacion pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore kompetente. Asnj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs nuk mund t\u00eb pretendoj\u00eb se ai ose ajo ishte n\u00eb dijeni t\u00eb detyrimeve raportuese – t\u00eb cilat jan\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktuar qart\u00eb n\u00eb Direktiv\u00eb – ndaj t\u00eb cilave ai ose ajo i n\u00ebnshtrohet drejtp\u00ebrdrejt dhe individualisht. Direktiva e b\u00ebn avokatin-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs nj\u00eb person nga i cili nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb nuk mund, a priori, t\u00eb presin ndonj\u00eb iniciativ\u00eb t\u00eb aft\u00eb p\u00ebr t’i leht\u00ebsuar ata nga detyrimet e tyre raportuese. Zbulimi, nga pal\u00ebt e treta nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebse t\u00eb njoftuara, i identitetit t\u00eb avokatit-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs dhe faktit t\u00eb konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore gjithashtu nuk duket t\u00eb jet\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr ndjekjen e objektivave t\u00eb Direktiv\u00ebs. Detyrimi raportues mbi nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb q\u00eb nuk i n\u00ebnshtrohen fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale dhe, n\u00ebse nuk ka nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs t\u00eb till\u00eb, ky detyrim mbi tatimpaguesin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, sigurojn\u00eb, n\u00eb parim, q\u00eb autoritetet tatimore t\u00eb informohen. Autoritetet tatimore mund t\u00eb, pasi t\u00eb ken\u00eb marr\u00eb informacion t\u00eb till\u00eb, t\u00eb k\u00ebrkojn\u00eb informacion shtes\u00eb direkt nga tatimpaguesi p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, i cili m\u00eb pas do t\u00eb jet\u00eb n\u00eb gjendje t\u00eb konsultoj\u00eb avokatin e tij ose t\u00eb saj p\u00ebr ndihm\u00eb. Autoritetet tatimore gjithashtu mund t\u00eb kryejn\u00eb nj\u00eb auditim t\u00eb situat\u00ebs tatimore t\u00eb atij tatimpaguesi. Prandaj, Gjykata mban q\u00ebndrimin se detyrimi p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar i p\u00ebrcaktuar nga Direktiva shkel t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve midis nj\u00eb avokati dhe klientit t\u00eb tij ose saj. Combatting aggressive tax planning: the obligation for a lawyer to inform other intermediaries involved is not necessary and infringes the right to respect for communications with his<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3637,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"elementor_header_footer","format":"standard","meta":{"_thinkrank_schema_form_data":"","_thinkrank_selected_schema_type":"","_thinkrank_additional_schemas":"","_thinkrank_canonical_url":"","_thinkrank_og_title":"","_thinkrank_og_description":"","_thinkrank_og_image":"","_thinkrank_twitter_title":"","_thinkrank_twitter_description":"","_thinkrank_twitter_image":"","_thinkrank_imported_from":"","_thinkrank_focus_keywords":[],"_thinkrank_focus_keyword":"","_thinkrank_robots_meta_enabled":0,"_thinkrank_robots_meta":"[]","_thinkrank_advanced_robots_meta":"[]","_thinkrank_primary_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4290","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-petani-blog"],"yoast_head":"\n<title>Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others - Petani Law Firm<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"it_IT\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others - Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies – Petani Law & Tax Vendim i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Evrop\u00ebs \u2022 \u00c7\u00ebshtja C-694\/20 Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others Lufta kund\u00ebr planifikimit agresiv tatimor: detyrimi i avokatit p\u00ebr t\u00eb informuar nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm dhe shkel t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve me klientin e tij ose t\u00eb saj T\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb nj\u00eb planifikim t\u00eb till\u00eb, dhe vet\u00eb tatimpaguesi, i n\u00ebnshtrohen k\u00ebtij detyrimi raportimi, i cili b\u00ebn t\u00eb mundur sigurimin q\u00eb autoritetet tatimore t\u00eb informohen. Nj\u00eb Direktiv\u00eb e BE-s\u00eb parashikon se t\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb planifikimin tatimor nd\u00ebrkufitar potencialisht agresiv (marr\u00ebveshje q\u00eb mund t\u00eb \u00e7ojn\u00eb n\u00eb shmangie dhe evazion fiskal) k\u00ebrkohet t’i raportojn\u00eb ato pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore kompetente. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor Ky detyrim ka t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb me t\u00eb gjith\u00eb ata q\u00eb marrin pjes\u00eb n\u00eb dizajnimin, tregtimin, organizimin ose menaxhimin e zbatimit t\u00eb k\u00ebtij planifikimi. T\u00eb gjith\u00eb ata q\u00eb ofrojn\u00eb ndihm\u00eb ose k\u00ebshilla n\u00eb lidhje me at\u00eb planifikim, ose n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb personave t\u00eb till\u00eb, vet\u00eb tatimpaguesi gjithashtu mbulohen. Megjithat\u00eb, \u00e7do Shtet An\u00ebtar mund t’u jof\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsve nj\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtim nga ky detyrim kur ai do t\u00eb cenonte fsheht\u00ebsin\u00eb profesionale t\u00eb mbrojtur sipas ligjit t\u00eb tij komb\u00ebtar. N\u00eb rreth t\u00eb tilla, avokat\u00ebt-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs megjithat\u00eb k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb njoftojn\u00eb pa vones\u00eb \u00e7do nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs tjet\u00ebr, ose tatimpaguesin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, p\u00ebr detyrimet e lor raportuese ndaj autoriteteve kompetente. Dekreti flemand q\u00eb transpozon at\u00eb direktiv\u00eb k\u00ebshtu parashikon se, kur nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs i p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb planifikimin tatimor nd\u00ebrkufitar \u00ebsht\u00eb i lidhur nga fsheht\u00ebsia profesionale, ai ose ajo duhet t\u00eb informoj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb se ai ose ajo nuk mund ta b\u00ebj\u00eb vet\u00eb at\u00eb raportim. Dy organizata profesionale t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve soll\u00ebn padi para Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese t\u00eb Belgjik\u00ebs. N\u00eb parashtresat e tyre, \u00ebsht\u00eb e pamundur t\u00eb sigurohet informacion p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb pa shkelur fsheht\u00ebsin\u00eb profesionale nga e cila avokat\u00ebt jan\u00eb t\u00eb lidhur. Gjykata Kushtetuese e Belgjik\u00ebs k\u00ebrkon nj\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje nga Gjykata e Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb drejtim. N\u00eb vendimin e saj sot, Gjykata e Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb kujton n\u00eb radh\u00eb t\u00eb par\u00eb se Neni 7 i Kart\u00ebs s\u00eb t\u00eb Drejtave Themelore t\u00eb Bashkimit Evropian mbron konfidencialitetin e t\u00eb gjith\u00eb korrespondenc\u00ebs midis individ\u00ebve dhe siguron mbrojtje t\u00eb p\u00ebrforcuar p\u00ebr shk\u00ebmbimet midis avokat\u00ebve dhe klient\u00ebve t\u00eb tyre. Ajo mbrojtje specifike q\u00eb i jepet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve arsyetohet nga fakti se avokat\u00ebve u caktohet nj\u00eb rol themelor n\u00eb nj\u00eb shoq\u00ebri demokratike, ai i mbrojtjes s\u00eb pal\u00ebve nd\u00ebrgjyq\u00ebse. Ky rol k\u00ebrkon q\u00eb \u00e7do individ t\u00eb jet\u00eb n\u00eb gjendje t\u00eb k\u00ebrkoj\u00eb k\u00ebshilla lirisht nga avokati i tij ose i saj, nj\u00eb parim i njohur n\u00eb t\u00eb gjitha Shtetet An\u00ebtare. Fsheht\u00ebsia profesionale gjithashtu mbulon konsultimin ligjor, si p\u00ebr sa i p\u00ebrket p\u00ebrmbajtjes s\u00eb tij ashtu edhe ekzistenc\u00ebs s\u00eb tij. P\u00ebrve\u00e7 situatave jasht\u00ebzakonshme, klient\u00ebt duhet t\u00eb ken\u00eb nj\u00eb pritshm\u00ebri legjitime se, pa p\u00eblqimin e tyre, avokati i tyre nuk do t’i zbuloj\u00eb kujt se ata po e konsultojn\u00eb at\u00eb ose at\u00eb. Megjithat\u00eb, detyrimi i p\u00ebrcaktuar nga Direktiva p\u00ebr nj\u00eb avokat-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs q\u00eb i n\u00ebnshtrohet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar pa vones\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb p\u00ebr detyrimet e tyre raportuese n\u00ebnkupton se ata nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs t\u00eb tjer\u00eb b\u00ebhen t\u00eb vet\u00ebdijsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr identitetin e avokatit-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs. Ata gjithashtu b\u00ebhen t\u00eb vet\u00ebdijsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr analiz\u00ebn e tij ose t\u00eb saj se marr\u00ebveshja tatimore n\u00eb fjal\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb e raportueshme dhe p\u00ebr faktin e konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj n\u00eb lidhje me marr\u00ebveshjen. Ky detyrim p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar sjell nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrhyrje n\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve midis avokat\u00ebve dhe klient\u00ebve t\u00eb tyre, t\u00eb garantuar n\u00eb Nenin 7 t\u00eb Kart\u00ebs s\u00eb t\u00eb Drejtave Themelore. Duke qen\u00eb se nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb informojn\u00eb autoritetet tatimore kompetente p\u00ebr identitetin e avokatit dhe faktin e konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj, ky detyrim gjithashtu \u00e7on indirekt n\u00eb nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrhyrje t\u00eb dyt\u00eb n\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr fsheht\u00ebsi profesionale. M\u00eb pas Gjykata ekzaminon n\u00ebse k\u00ebto nd\u00ebrhyrje mund t\u00eb justifikohen, n\u00eb ve\u00e7anti n\u00ebse ato p\u00ebrmbushin objektivat e interesit t\u00eb p\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm t\u00eb njohura nga BE-ja dhe n\u00ebse ato jan\u00eb t\u00eb nevojshme p\u00ebr ndjekjen e atyre objektivave. Gjykata kujton se amendamenti i b\u00ebr\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2018 n\u00eb direktiv\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebn pjes\u00eb t\u00eb bashk\u00ebpunimit tatimor nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtar q\u00eb synon t\u00eb kontribuoj\u00eb n\u00eb parandalimin e rrezikut t\u00eb shmangies dhe evazionit tatimor, gj\u00eb q\u00eb p\u00ebub\u00ebn nj\u00eb nga objektivat e interesit t\u00eb p\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm t\u00eb njohura nga BE-ja. Sidoqoft\u00eb, Gjykata konsideron se detyrimi i njoftimit mbi nj\u00eb avokat q\u00eb i n\u00ebnshtrohet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr t\u00eb arritur at\u00eb objektivat. T\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb dor\u00ebzojn\u00eb at\u00eb informacion pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore kompetente. Asnj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs nuk mund t\u00eb pretendoj\u00eb se ai ose ajo ishte n\u00eb dijeni t\u00eb detyrimeve raportuese – t\u00eb cilat jan\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktuar qart\u00eb n\u00eb Direktiv\u00eb – ndaj t\u00eb cilave ai ose ajo i n\u00ebnshtrohet drejtp\u00ebrdrejt dhe individualisht. Direktiva e b\u00ebn avokatin-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs nj\u00eb person nga i cili nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb nuk mund, a priori, t\u00eb presin ndonj\u00eb iniciativ\u00eb t\u00eb aft\u00eb p\u00ebr t’i leht\u00ebsuar ata nga detyrimet e tyre raportuese. Zbulimi, nga pal\u00ebt e treta nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebse t\u00eb njoftuara, i identitetit t\u00eb avokatit-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs dhe faktit t\u00eb konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore gjithashtu nuk duket t\u00eb jet\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr ndjekjen e objektivave t\u00eb Direktiv\u00ebs. Detyrimi raportues mbi nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb q\u00eb nuk i n\u00ebnshtrohen fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale dhe, n\u00ebse nuk ka nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs t\u00eb till\u00eb, ky detyrim mbi tatimpaguesin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, sigurojn\u00eb, n\u00eb parim, q\u00eb autoritetet tatimore t\u00eb informohen. Autoritetet tatimore mund t\u00eb, pasi t\u00eb ken\u00eb marr\u00eb informacion t\u00eb till\u00eb, t\u00eb k\u00ebrkojn\u00eb informacion shtes\u00eb direkt nga tatimpaguesi p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, i cili m\u00eb pas do t\u00eb jet\u00eb n\u00eb gjendje t\u00eb konsultoj\u00eb avokatin e tij ose t\u00eb saj p\u00ebr ndihm\u00eb. Autoritetet tatimore gjithashtu mund t\u00eb kryejn\u00eb nj\u00eb auditim t\u00eb situat\u00ebs tatimore t\u00eb atij tatimpaguesi. Prandaj, Gjykata mban q\u00ebndrimin se detyrimi p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar i p\u00ebrcaktuar nga Direktiva shkel t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve midis nj\u00eb avokati dhe klientit t\u00eb tij ose saj. Combatting aggressive tax planning: the obligation for a lawyer to inform other intermediaries involved is not necessary and infringes the right to respect for communications with his\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Petani Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-13T08:40:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-08-13T08:44:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Stafi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Scritto da\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Stafi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Tempo di lettura stimato\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minuti\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\"},\"headline\":\"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\\\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-13T08:40:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-13T08:44:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":2967,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"articleSection\":[\"Petani Blog\"],\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/\",\"name\":\"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\\\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others - Petani Law Firm\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-13T08:40:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-08-13T08:44:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":2560},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\\\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/\",\"name\":\"Petani Law Firm\",\"description\":\"Law Firm in Durr\u00ebs\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Petani Law Firm\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2024\\\/04\\\/logo.png\",\"width\":500,\"height\":155,\"caption\":\"Petani Law Firm\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/sq\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90\",\"name\":\"Stafi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"it-IT\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/04\\\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png\",\"caption\":\"Stafi\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\\\/it\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others - Petani Law Firm","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/","og_locale":"it_IT","og_type":"article","og_title":"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others - Petani Law Firm","og_description":"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies – Petani Law & Tax Vendim i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Evrop\u00ebs \u2022 \u00c7\u00ebshtja C-694\/20 Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others Lufta kund\u00ebr planifikimit agresiv tatimor: detyrimi i avokatit p\u00ebr t\u00eb informuar nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm dhe shkel t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve me klientin e tij ose t\u00eb saj T\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb nj\u00eb planifikim t\u00eb till\u00eb, dhe vet\u00eb tatimpaguesi, i n\u00ebnshtrohen k\u00ebtij detyrimi raportimi, i cili b\u00ebn t\u00eb mundur sigurimin q\u00eb autoritetet tatimore t\u00eb informohen. Nj\u00eb Direktiv\u00eb e BE-s\u00eb parashikon se t\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb planifikimin tatimor nd\u00ebrkufitar potencialisht agresiv (marr\u00ebveshje q\u00eb mund t\u00eb \u00e7ojn\u00eb n\u00eb shmangie dhe evazion fiskal) k\u00ebrkohet t’i raportojn\u00eb ato pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore kompetente. P\u00ebrmbledhje e \u00c7\u00ebshtjes dhe Arsyetimi Ligjor Ky detyrim ka t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb me t\u00eb gjith\u00eb ata q\u00eb marrin pjes\u00eb n\u00eb dizajnimin, tregtimin, organizimin ose menaxhimin e zbatimit t\u00eb k\u00ebtij planifikimi. T\u00eb gjith\u00eb ata q\u00eb ofrojn\u00eb ndihm\u00eb ose k\u00ebshilla n\u00eb lidhje me at\u00eb planifikim, ose n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb personave t\u00eb till\u00eb, vet\u00eb tatimpaguesi gjithashtu mbulohen. Megjithat\u00eb, \u00e7do Shtet An\u00ebtar mund t’u jof\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsve nj\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtim nga ky detyrim kur ai do t\u00eb cenonte fsheht\u00ebsin\u00eb profesionale t\u00eb mbrojtur sipas ligjit t\u00eb tij komb\u00ebtar. N\u00eb rreth t\u00eb tilla, avokat\u00ebt-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs megjithat\u00eb k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb njoftojn\u00eb pa vones\u00eb \u00e7do nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs tjet\u00ebr, ose tatimpaguesin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, p\u00ebr detyrimet e lor raportuese ndaj autoriteteve kompetente. Dekreti flemand q\u00eb transpozon at\u00eb direktiv\u00eb k\u00ebshtu parashikon se, kur nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs i p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb planifikimin tatimor nd\u00ebrkufitar \u00ebsht\u00eb i lidhur nga fsheht\u00ebsia profesionale, ai ose ajo duhet t\u00eb informoj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb se ai ose ajo nuk mund ta b\u00ebj\u00eb vet\u00eb at\u00eb raportim. Dy organizata profesionale t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve soll\u00ebn padi para Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese t\u00eb Belgjik\u00ebs. N\u00eb parashtresat e tyre, \u00ebsht\u00eb e pamundur t\u00eb sigurohet informacion p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb pa shkelur fsheht\u00ebsin\u00eb profesionale nga e cila avokat\u00ebt jan\u00eb t\u00eb lidhur. Gjykata Kushtetuese e Belgjik\u00ebs k\u00ebrkon nj\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje nga Gjykata e Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb drejtim. N\u00eb vendimin e saj sot, Gjykata e Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb kujton n\u00eb radh\u00eb t\u00eb par\u00eb se Neni 7 i Kart\u00ebs s\u00eb t\u00eb Drejtave Themelore t\u00eb Bashkimit Evropian mbron konfidencialitetin e t\u00eb gjith\u00eb korrespondenc\u00ebs midis individ\u00ebve dhe siguron mbrojtje t\u00eb p\u00ebrforcuar p\u00ebr shk\u00ebmbimet midis avokat\u00ebve dhe klient\u00ebve t\u00eb tyre. Ajo mbrojtje specifike q\u00eb i jepet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale t\u00eb avokat\u00ebve arsyetohet nga fakti se avokat\u00ebve u caktohet nj\u00eb rol themelor n\u00eb nj\u00eb shoq\u00ebri demokratike, ai i mbrojtjes s\u00eb pal\u00ebve nd\u00ebrgjyq\u00ebse. Ky rol k\u00ebrkon q\u00eb \u00e7do individ t\u00eb jet\u00eb n\u00eb gjendje t\u00eb k\u00ebrkoj\u00eb k\u00ebshilla lirisht nga avokati i tij ose i saj, nj\u00eb parim i njohur n\u00eb t\u00eb gjitha Shtetet An\u00ebtare. Fsheht\u00ebsia profesionale gjithashtu mbulon konsultimin ligjor, si p\u00ebr sa i p\u00ebrket p\u00ebrmbajtjes s\u00eb tij ashtu edhe ekzistenc\u00ebs s\u00eb tij. P\u00ebrve\u00e7 situatave jasht\u00ebzakonshme, klient\u00ebt duhet t\u00eb ken\u00eb nj\u00eb pritshm\u00ebri legjitime se, pa p\u00eblqimin e tyre, avokati i tyre nuk do t’i zbuloj\u00eb kujt se ata po e konsultojn\u00eb at\u00eb ose at\u00eb. Megjithat\u00eb, detyrimi i p\u00ebrcaktuar nga Direktiva p\u00ebr nj\u00eb avokat-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs q\u00eb i n\u00ebnshtrohet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar pa vones\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb p\u00ebr detyrimet e tyre raportuese n\u00ebnkupton se ata nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs t\u00eb tjer\u00eb b\u00ebhen t\u00eb vet\u00ebdijsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr identitetin e avokatit-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs. Ata gjithashtu b\u00ebhen t\u00eb vet\u00ebdijsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr analiz\u00ebn e tij ose t\u00eb saj se marr\u00ebveshja tatimore n\u00eb fjal\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb e raportueshme dhe p\u00ebr faktin e konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj n\u00eb lidhje me marr\u00ebveshjen. Ky detyrim p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar sjell nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrhyrje n\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve midis avokat\u00ebve dhe klient\u00ebve t\u00eb tyre, t\u00eb garantuar n\u00eb Nenin 7 t\u00eb Kart\u00ebs s\u00eb t\u00eb Drejtave Themelore. Duke qen\u00eb se nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb informojn\u00eb autoritetet tatimore kompetente p\u00ebr identitetin e avokatit dhe faktin e konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj, ky detyrim gjithashtu \u00e7on indirekt n\u00eb nj\u00eb nd\u00ebrhyrje t\u00eb dyt\u00eb n\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr fsheht\u00ebsi profesionale. M\u00eb pas Gjykata ekzaminon n\u00ebse k\u00ebto nd\u00ebrhyrje mund t\u00eb justifikohen, n\u00eb ve\u00e7anti n\u00ebse ato p\u00ebrmbushin objektivat e interesit t\u00eb p\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm t\u00eb njohura nga BE-ja dhe n\u00ebse ato jan\u00eb t\u00eb nevojshme p\u00ebr ndjekjen e atyre objektivave. Gjykata kujton se amendamenti i b\u00ebr\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2018 n\u00eb direktiv\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebn pjes\u00eb t\u00eb bashk\u00ebpunimit tatimor nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtar q\u00eb synon t\u00eb kontribuoj\u00eb n\u00eb parandalimin e rrezikut t\u00eb shmangies dhe evazionit tatimor, gj\u00eb q\u00eb p\u00ebub\u00ebn nj\u00eb nga objektivat e interesit t\u00eb p\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm t\u00eb njohura nga BE-ja. Sidoqoft\u00eb, Gjykata konsideron se detyrimi i njoftimit mbi nj\u00eb avokat q\u00eb i n\u00ebnshtrohet fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr t\u00eb arritur at\u00eb objektivat. T\u00eb gjith\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit k\u00ebrkohen t\u00eb dor\u00ebzojn\u00eb at\u00eb informacion pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore kompetente. Asnj\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs nuk mund t\u00eb pretendoj\u00eb se ai ose ajo ishte n\u00eb dijeni t\u00eb detyrimeve raportuese – t\u00eb cilat jan\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktuar qart\u00eb n\u00eb Direktiv\u00eb – ndaj t\u00eb cilave ai ose ajo i n\u00ebnshtrohet drejtp\u00ebrdrejt dhe individualisht. Direktiva e b\u00ebn avokatin-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs nj\u00eb person nga i cili nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb nuk mund, a priori, t\u00eb presin ndonj\u00eb iniciativ\u00eb t\u00eb aft\u00eb p\u00ebr t’i leht\u00ebsuar ata nga detyrimet e tyre raportuese. Zbulimi, nga pal\u00ebt e treta nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebse t\u00eb njoftuara, i identitetit t\u00eb avokatit-nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs dhe faktit t\u00eb konsultimit t\u00eb tij ose saj pran\u00eb autoriteteve tatimore gjithashtu nuk duket t\u00eb jet\u00eb i nevojsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr ndjekjen e objektivave t\u00eb Direktiv\u00ebs. Detyrimi raportues mbi nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebsit e tjer\u00eb q\u00eb nuk i n\u00ebnshtrohen fsheht\u00ebsis\u00eb profesionale dhe, n\u00ebse nuk ka nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebs t\u00eb till\u00eb, ky detyrim mbi tatimpaguesin p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, sigurojn\u00eb, n\u00eb parim, q\u00eb autoritetet tatimore t\u00eb informohen. Autoritetet tatimore mund t\u00eb, pasi t\u00eb ken\u00eb marr\u00eb informacion t\u00eb till\u00eb, t\u00eb k\u00ebrkojn\u00eb informacion shtes\u00eb direkt nga tatimpaguesi p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, i cili m\u00eb pas do t\u00eb jet\u00eb n\u00eb gjendje t\u00eb konsultoj\u00eb avokatin e tij ose t\u00eb saj p\u00ebr ndihm\u00eb. Autoritetet tatimore gjithashtu mund t\u00eb kryejn\u00eb nj\u00eb auditim t\u00eb situat\u00ebs tatimore t\u00eb atij tatimpaguesi. Prandaj, Gjykata mban q\u00ebndrimin se detyrimi p\u00ebr t\u00eb njoftuar i p\u00ebrcaktuar nga Direktiva shkel t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr respektimin e komunikimeve midis nj\u00eb avokati dhe klientit t\u00eb tij ose saj. Combatting aggressive tax planning: the obligation for a lawyer to inform other intermediaries involved is not necessary and infringes the right to respect for communications with his","og_url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/","og_site_name":"Petani Law Firm","article_published_time":"2026-08-13T08:40:57+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-08-13T08:44:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":2560,"url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"Stafi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Scritto da":"Stafi","Tempo di lettura stimato":"13 minuti"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/"},"author":{"name":"Stafi","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90"},"headline":"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others","datePublished":"2026-08-13T08:40:57+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-13T08:44:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/"},"wordCount":2967,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","articleSection":["Petani Blog"],"inLanguage":"it-IT","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/","name":"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others - Petani Law Firm","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","datePublished":"2026-08-13T08:40:57+00:00","dateModified":"2026-08-13T08:44:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"it-IT","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"it-IT","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/case-studies-petani-scaled.webp","width":2560,"height":2560},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/judgment-of-the-court-in-case-c-694-20-orde-van-vlaamse-balies-and-others\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Judgment of the Court in Case C-694\/20 | Orde van Vlaamse Balies and Others"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/","name":"Petani Law Firm","description":"Law Firm in Durr\u00ebs","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"it-IT"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#organization","name":"Petani Law Firm","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"it-IT","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/logo.png","width":500,"height":155,"caption":"Petani Law Firm"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/sq\/#\/schema\/person\/6dde4e6d9a37ed818d90e2333ea4df90","name":"Stafi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"it-IT","@id":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/cropped-Untitled-design-30-1-96x96.png","caption":"Stafi"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com"],"url":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4290","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4290"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4290\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4297,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4290\/revisions\/4297"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3637"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4290"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4290"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.petani-lawfirm.com\/it\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4290"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}