Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
A SCPI v Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö (C-342/20)
Consideration of the question referred
Whether there is an overriding reason…
91

A SCPI v Veronsaajien oikeudenvalvontayksikkö (C-342/20)

Judgment of 7 Apr 2022law://eu/cjeu/2020/c-342-20/para_91@2026-11-11

91In the fourth place, the Court has previously held that the need to preserve the coherence of a tax system may justify legislation restricting fundamental freedoms (judgment of 16 December 2021, UBS Real Estate, C‑478/19 and C‑479/19, EU:C:2021:1015, paragraph 65 and the case-law cited).

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Second Chamber
Case: C-342/20 · ECLI:EU:C:2022:276
Decided: 7 Apr 2022
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Helsingin hallinto-oikeus (Administrative Court, Helsinki, Finland)
Rapporteur: I. Ziemele
Advocate General: H. Saugmandsgaard Øe
Bench: 5 judges
A. Arabadjiev, I. Ziemele, T. von Danwitz, P.G. Xuereb, A. Kumin
Language: Finnish
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62020CJ0342

Topics

Approximation of laws Freedom of establishment Free movement of capital Law governing the institutions Taxation

History · 1 version

7 Apr 2022Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)3 provisions
Cited by 10: F S.A. v Dyrektor Krajowej Informacji Skarbowej (C-18/23); Gallaher Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs (C-707/20); DK and JO v État belge (C-119/24); Familienstiftung v Finanzamt Köln-West (C-142/24); Finanzamt für Großbetriebe v Franklin Mutual Series Funds - Franklin Mutual European Fund (C-602/23); XX v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst (C-782/22); Keva and Others v Skatteverket (C-39/23); NO v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira (C-472/22); L Fund v Finanzamt D (C-537/20)2 provisions; X GmbH & Co. KG v Finanzamt Bremen (C-431/21)
Cites 20: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)3 provisions; Directive 2009/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) (recast) (Text with EEA relevance); Directive 2011/61/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on Alternative Investment Fund Managers and amending Directives 2003/41/EC and 2009/65/EC and Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009 and (EU) No 1095/2010; 'SEGRO' Kft. v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal Sárvári Járási Földhivatala and Günther Horváth v Vas Megyei Kormányhivatal (C-52/16, C-113/16); Margaretha Bouanich v Directeur des services fiscaux de la Drôme (C-375/12); SIA „KOB” v Madonas novada pašvaldības Administratīvo aktu strīdu komisija (C-206/19); College Pension Plan of British Columbia v Finanzamt München Abteilung III (C-641/17); Rita van Caster and Patrick van Caster v Finanzamt Essen-Süd (C-326/12); Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty; X-GmbH v Finanzamt Stuttgart - Körperschaften (C-135/17); Sofina SA and Others v Ministre de l'Action et des Comptes publics (C-575/17); UBS Real Estate Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH v Agenzia delle Entrate (C-478/19)2 provisions; Köln-Aktienfonds Deka v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-156/17); Vlaamse Gewest and Vlaamse Gewest v Johannes Huijbrechts (C-679/17); Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer v Finanzamt München für Körperschaften (C-386/04); Hein Persche v Finanzamt Lüdenscheid (C-318/07); K (C-322/11); EV v Finanzamt Lippstadt (C-685/16); M-GmbH v Finanzamt für Körperschaften (C-868/19); Société Générale S.A. v Agenzia delle Entrate – Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso (C-565/18)