The ECJ has held that the denial of relief in a member state of residence for a loss made on the sale of property in another member state is not an unjustified restriction on the free movement of capital.
In its judgement of 24 July 2018, published on 30 January 2019, the Supreme Tax Court held that with regard to national provisions with a requirement of a minimum shareholding of at least 10%, the principle of the free movement of capital is not blocked by the principle of freedom of establishment. Whilst the judgement specifically related to a legal provision, which is no longer applicable, it represents a departure by the Supreme Tax Court from its previous view on this issue.
In a currently published judgment, the European Court of Justice held that the German regulation providing favorable inheritance tax classes for domestic family foundations which are not available to foreign family foundations does not contravene the fundamental principle for free movement of capital provided that the legislation in question complies with the principle of proportionality.
The Supreme Tax Court has laid a preliminary question before the ECJ on whether the provision setting the taxable income derived from an investment in a non-compliant foreign fund at 90% of the increase in the unit redemption price during the year is to be disapplied as a restriction on the free movement of capital going beyond what is necessary to combat tax evasion.
Based on the German tax provisions existing in the years in dispute 2008 through 2010, resident and non-resident special real estate funds are treated differently, which is disadvantageous for non-resident special real estate funds. In its decision the ECJ sees a restriction on the free movement of capital which cannot be justified by overriding reasons of public interest.
In a case brought by the Commission, the ECJ has held that Germany’s withholding tax on dividends to other corporations is in breach of community law in that it discourages persons from other member states from investing in Germany.
An ECJ advocate general has suggested the court deny an individual freedom of capital movement on the grounds that the more appropriate freedom is that of establishment, which, however, is not relevant in the circumstances.
In a most recent decision, the Regional Tax Court of Düsseldorf dismissed the claim of a Japanese corporation for a refund of withholding tax on the grounds that the case was within the scope of the EU principles for freedom of establishment which the plaintiff, being a resident of a third country, could not invoke.
In its decision of 3 June 2025 – VIII R 21/22, the Supreme Tax Court referred various questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling in connection with the dividend withholding tax paid to third-country companies.
An ECJ advocate general has suggested the court rule the German rules for “penalty” taxation on a unit holder of a foreign investment fund to be an unjustified hindrance on the investor’s freedom of capital movement.
The ECJ has held that no restriction on the freedom of capital movement arises from relieving domestic double taxation on dividend income under an exact imputation system, whilst foreign double taxation is relieved by exempting the foreign income.
An ECJ advocate general has suggested that a tax treaty can justify a hindrance on the free movement of capital from granting a tax credit privilege to recipients of a dividend from a third country but not to those with dividends from a member state.
The German rules on the procedure and documentation requirements for withholding tax refunds to non-resident portfolio shareholders are not compatible with the EU principles on the free movement of capital, as the European Court of Justice (ECJ) said in a most recent decision.
An ECJ advocate general has suggested the court recognise a restriction on the free movement of capital from the differing treatment of the corporation tax underlying domestic and foreign dividends, but hold it to be justified in the interests of maintaining the internationally agreed balance of taxing rights.
The Lower Tax Court of Munich referred preliminary questions to the European Court of Justice regarding the compatibility of the German regime of dividend withholding tax imposed on a Canadian pension fund with the free movement of capital as provided in Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
The ECJ has held that a German provision for the taxation of deemed income from foreign investment funds outside the EU that do not comply with the German disclosure requirements falls under the “grandfather” clause of Art 64 of the TFEU allowing restrictions on the free movement of capital to and from third countries on December 31, 1993 to continue in force.
The European Commission decided to refer Germany to the European Court of Justice for having failed to remedy the infringement of the free movement of capital (Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement) due to its discriminatory tax treatment of reinvested capital gains upon sale of real estate located in Germany.
In a most recent decision, the European Court of Justice held that the German inheritance tax regime that distinguishes between assets located in the domestic territory, in a Member State of the European Union or in the EEA or, alternatively, in a third country, is a restriction on the free movement of capital and cannot be justified by overriding reasons relating to the public interest.
In his Opinion of 20 January 2022, the Advocate General (AG) suggests to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) that Germany’s requirements for withholding tax claims filed by non-resident corporate taxpayers with seat or place of management in the EU or EEA are too strict in two respects and thus in violation of Article 63 TFEU on the free movement of capital.
