TA - 54358
From GDPRhub
| TA - 54358 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court: | TA (Luxembourg) |
| Jurisdiction: | Luxembourg |
| Relevant Law: | Article 5(1)(c) GDPR |
| Decided: | 15.04.2026 |
| Published: | |
| Parties: | Swedish Tax Authority Luxembourgish Tax Authority |
| National Case Number/Name: | 54358 |
| European Case Law Identifier: | ECLI:LU:TADM:2026:54358 |
| Appeal from: | Administrative Court (Luxembourg) 53484a |
| Appeal to: | Unknown |
| Original Language(s): | French |
| Original Source: | LU Administrative Court (in French) |
| Initial Contributor: | ap |
A court held that a company failed to comply with an order by the tax authority to provide information. The court dismissed the controller’s argument that it was obligation to anonymise some data due to the data minimisation principle.
English Summary
Facts
In 2025, the Luxembourgish Tax Authority (the controller) requested a Luxembourgish company to provide it with tax related information from several Swedish data subjects, following a request for assistance from the Swedish Tax Authority. The controller requested information related to one specific data subject, but also requested a complete list of data subjects who held a specific type of loan with the company (including Swedish residents). The purpose was to verify data subjects’ tax situation.
The company filed a case with the Administrative Court in September 2025, seeking to appeal the request. The court dismissed this decision, and the company provided the controller with the information. The company anonymised the data that was not related to the specific data subject and Swedish residents in order to comply with data minimisation requirements under the GDPR (Article 5(1)(c) GDPR). The controller requested the complete information, and fined the company €79,000 for refusing to provide it. The company filed a claim with the Administrative Court, who dismissed it and upheld the fine. The decision was then appealed by the company to the court, seeking to overturn the fine. The company argued that it had complied with the controller’s request while complying with the GDPR, and that information of data subjects that were not tax residents in Sweden would likely not be relevant for the controller. The controller argued that the request was justified under national law.
Holding
The court dismissed the company’s appeal regarding data minimisation, but partly upheld the appeal regarding the fine.
The court considered that the company did not comply with the controller’s decision, as it did not provide a complete list of data subjects holding a specific loan type with the company. The court dismissed the company’s data minimisation argument; according to the court, the company did not substantiate its argument as it did not refer to specific articles of the GDPR. Finally, the court considered that the full information was relevant for the Swedish tax authority, and therefore, the request for information was not disproportionate in light of the principle of data minimisation.
However, the court reduced the fine to €12.500.
Comment
Share your comments here!
Further Resources
Share blogs or news articles here!
English Machine Translation of the Decision
The decision below is a machine translation of the French original. Please refer to the French original for more details.
Administrative Court No. 54358 of the Roll
of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ECLI:LU:TADM:2026: 54358
3rd Chamber Filed on February 24, 2026
Public Hearing of April 15, 2026
Appeal filed by
the limited liability company (AA) SARL, …
against a decision of the Director of the Direct Tax Administration
regarding the exchange of information – fine
______________________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Having regard to the application registered under number 54358 of the roll and filed on February 24, 2026 with the
registry of the Administrative Court by Ms. Annie ELFASSI, Attorney at Law, registered with the
Luxembourg Bar Association, assisted by Mr. Diogo DUARTE DE
OLIVEIRA, Attorney practicing under his original professional title under List IV, on behalf of
the limited liability company (AA) SARL, established and having its registered office in L-…,
registered in the Luxembourg Trade and Companies Register under number …,
represented by its currently functioning corporate bodies, seeking the reversal of a
decision of the Director of the Direct Tax Administration dated January 26, 2026,
referenced under number …, imposing a fine of €79,000 on it for
failure to provide information in response to a request for assistance from
the Swedish tax authorities;
Having regard to the response memorandum of the Government Delegate filed with the Registry of the Administrative Court on March 17, 2026;
Having regard to the documents submitted in the case, and in particular the decision under appeal;
Having heard the report of the reporting judge, as well as the arguments of Mr. Olivier DAL FARRA,
assisted by Ms. Merona GEHBRHIWET, replacing Ms. Annie ELFASSI, and
Ms. Caroline PEFFER, the government delegate, at the public hearing of March 24, 2026.
By letter dated July 31, 2025, the Director of the Direct Tax Administration,
hereinafter referred to as "the Director" or "the ACD," ordered the limited liability company (AA) SARL, hereinafter referred to as "the Company (AA)," to provide him
by September 12, 2025 at the latest with certain information, pursuant to Article 3,
paragraph (3) of the amended law of November 25, 2014, establishing the procedure applicable to
the exchange of information on request in tax matters, hereinafter referred to as "the Law of November 25
2014.
By letter dated August 11, 2025, the Director rescinded the injunction order of July 31, 2025, and ordered Company (AA) to provide certain information by September 19, 2025, at the latest, under the terms of an injunction worded as follows:
1 “[…] THIS INJUNCTION ORDER REVEALS AND REPLACES THAT OF JULY 31, 2025, REF….
Dear Sir/Madam,
On June 9, 2025, the competent Luxembourg authority received a request for the exchange of information under the Conventions and laws listed in Article 1, paragraph 1 of the amended law of November 25, 2014, providing for the procedure applicable to the exchange of information on request in tax matters. She verified the formal regularity of the aforementioned request for information and ruled out any manifest lack of relevance.
The tax purpose of the request is to verify the tax status in Sweden of Mr. (A), …, residing at …, and to identify Swedish taxpayers who have directly or indirectly held convertible loan notes (CLNs) in the company (AA) S.à r.l.
Therefore, and in addition to our injunction order bearing the reference …, we kindly request that you provide us with the following information for the period from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023, by September 19, 2025, at the latest.
For the sake of clarity, we have reproduced the English questionnaire from the request received.
1. Please provide a complete list of those who hold a convertible loan note (CLN) in (AA) S.à r.l., A-H-shares, i.e., those who will become shareholders upon redemption.
Please note that, in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2 of the aforementioned amended law of November 25, 2014, you are required to provide the requested information, along with all supporting documents, in full, accurately, and without alteration. If you are unable to provide one or more of the required pieces of information or documents listed above, you must provide a written explanation in your response. In the absence of a written response from you within one month of the date of this notification, an administrative tax penalty of up to €250,000 may be imposed in accordance with Article 5 of the aforementioned amended law of November 25, 2014.
Please send us the information and documents via the OTX file transfer system […].
By application filed with the registry of the administrative court on September 11, 2025,
Company (AA) filed an appeal seeking the annulment of the aforementioned management decision of August 11, 2025, as well as that of July 31, 2025. This appeal was dismissed by judgment of the administrative court on December 18, 2025, registered under number 53484.
By letter from its legal representative dated January 7, 2026, company (AA) responded to the
request for information, stating in particular the following: “[…] You will find, in
the attachment, the requested information concerning Mr. (A) and the Swedish residents. The
information other than that concerning Mr. (A) and the Swedish residents has been anonymized
in order to comply with the principle of data minimization as required by the GDPR, while also complying with the tax purpose of the request, which aims to verify Mr. (A)’s tax situation in
Sweden and to identify Swedish taxpayers who have directly
or indirectly held CNLs in company (AA) S.à r.l. […]”.
In a letter dated January 12, 2026, the director replied to company (AA) as follows:
“[…] I refer to your response of January 7, 2026, following our injunction order of August 11, 2026, reference …, a copy of which is attached, ordering you to provide us with information in the context of an administrative request. Indeed, I must note that your response does not fully comply with the provisions of Article 2(2) of the aforementioned amended law of November 25, 2014, which reads as follows: “The holder of the information is obligated to provide the requested information, as well as the documents on which this information is based, in full, accurately, and without alteration, within one month of notification of the injunction order.” »
The following ambiguities and omissions were noted:
- the list provided uses ambiguously, without further explanation, the following phrases:
"Individuals investor [...] or ultimate beneficiary owner" and
"investment / holding vehicle," making it impossible to precisely identify
the individuals (natural or legal persons) holding the CLNs (convertible loan notes);
- the list provided is incomplete ("[t]he information other than that concerning Mr.
(A) and Swedish residents has been anonymized [...]").
Therefore, I request that you provide the following information without delay:
- Please provide a complete list of those holding convertible loan notes (CLNs) in (AA) S.à r.l. for the period in question (a complete list of those who have CLNs in (AA) S.à r.l., A-H shares, i.e., those who will become shareholders upon redemption).
Please provide this information preferably via the OTX file transfer system.
Failing this, and in accordance with Article 5 of the aforementioned amended law of November 25, 2014, the Director of Direct Taxes may impose an administrative tax penalty of up to €250,000 on the holder of this information.
[…]
By email from its representative dated January 15, 2026, Company (AA) took
a position regarding the aforementioned letter of January 12, 2026, indicating that it had
complyed with the injunction order of August 11, 2025, by providing the list of “all
direct or indirect holders of CLNs residing in Sweden as well as beneficial owners
residing in Sweden holding CLNs through companies (regardless of the jurisdiction in
which the company is located) for the years referenced in the mutual legal assistance request dated
August 11, 2025 (i.e., from January 1, 2022, to December 31, 2023),” as well as “the names of the
Swedish legal entities that hold CLNs directly have been provided,
also when the beneficial owner is not resident in Sweden,” and that it would due to
the legal impossibility of providing the other information requested by the ACD, while
informing the ACD of its intention either to file a request for interpretation of the aforementioned judgment of December 18, 2025, or to request an opinion from the National Commission for Data Protection (CNPD).
3 By decision of 26 January 2026, the Director imposed a fine of €79,000 on (AA) for the following reasons:
“[…] You have only partially complied with our injunction order of 11 August 2026, reference …, and with our reminder of 12 January 2026, by providing an incomplete list of holders of convertible loan notes (CLNs) in (AA) S.à r.l. ([t]he information other than that concerning Mr. (A) and Swedish residents has been anonymized
[…]”; excerpt from Baker & McKenzie’s email of 7 January 2026).
Therefore, I regret to inform you that, in accordance with Article 5 of the aforementioned amended law of November 25, 2014, I am obliged to impose a tax administrative penalty of €79,000.00.
Please pay this sum within one month of receipt of this letter to the account of the Luxembourg tax office […]”.
By email from its legal representative dated January 29, 2026, company (AA)
requested the annulment of the decision of January 26, 2026, imposing the penalty, on the grounds that
it had complied with the injunction of August 11, 2025, that it had even
provided additional information, and that it had acted in good faith.
On February 24, 2026, Company (AA) filed a request with the registry of the administrative court for an interpretation of the aforementioned judgment of December 18, 2025. This request was dismissed by a judgment of the administrative court dated March 12, 2026, registered under number 53484a
in the docket.
By a request filed with the registry of the administrative court on February 24, 2026, Company (AA) initiated an appeal seeking the reversal of the aforementioned management decision of January 26, 2026, ordering it to pay a fine of €79,000.
Pursuant to Article 6, paragraph (1) of the Law of 25 November 2014, the holder of information who has been fined, within the meaning of Article 5 of the same Law, for failing to provide the requested information within the prescribed time limit, may appeal the Director's decision imposing the fine.
It follows that this court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal for review against the aforementioned Directorial decision of January 26, 2026,
said appeal being, moreover, admissible for having been filed in accordance with the prescribed form and time limits, it being further specified that while the government delegate refers to judicial prudence
regarding the admissibility of the appeal, and while it is true that a party's referral to judicial prudence is tantamount to a challenge, an unsubstantiated challenge must nevertheless be dismissed, given that it is not the role of the administrative judge to compensate for the parties' failure to provide evidence or to independently investigate the legal grounds that might have formed the basis of their claims.
1st
Tribunal Admin., January 23, 2013, No. 30455 of the docket, Pas. adm. 2025, V° Contentious Procedure, No. 962 (Part 2) and
the other references cited therein.
4. Grounds and Arguments of the Parties
In support of its appeal, the plaintiff company first reiterates the facts and background information
as transcribed above, emphasizing that it complied with the injunction order of August 11, 2025, and even provided additional information to
the ACD, while expressing indignation that a fine was imposed on it despite the exchanges that took place.
In law, the plaintiff company primarily seeks, within the framework of the appeal for review, the annulment of the contested decision for violation of Article 5 of the Law of November 25, 2014, arguing that the fine stipulated in said article, which pursues a coercive rather than punitive purpose, cannot be imposed on it since it has already complied with the injunction and provided all the required information.
She also believes that, since the appeal period against the aforementioned judgment of December 18, 2025, which was allegedly served on her on December 22, 2025, had not expired when she provided the information on January 7, 2026, no fine could legally have been imposed on her, in accordance with Article 6, paragraph (2) of the Law of November 25, 2014, which provides for a stay of execution of the judgment during this period.
In this context, she further notes that the fine imposed on her appears all the more unjustified given that a reminder was sent to her by the ACD on January 12, 2026, even though she had already complied with the injunction.
Company (AA) explains that, since the requesting state is Sweden and
in view of the tax purpose of the Swedish request for information, only information
concerning Mr. (A) and Swedish taxpayers who directly or
indirectly held convertible loan notes (CLNs) needed to be disclosed, whereas
information concerning CLN holders who are not tax residents of Sweden
would have no likely relevance to the Swedish tax authorities.
Therefore, in order to comply with the injunction and the judgment of December 18,
2025, it has provided all information relating to CLNs held by Mr.
(A), both directly and indirectly through associated foreign companies, as well as information
concerning CLNs held, directly or indirectly, by Swedish taxpayers.
She emphasizes that she even provided additional information by transmitting
anonymized data concerning holders of CLNs who do not have their
tax residence in Sweden, which, however, would not fall within the scope of the injunction
but would have been provided as supplementary information in compliance with the data protection rules set out in Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, hereinafter referred to as "the GDPR".
The applicant company concludes that “by providing all the information covered by the tax purpose, and by anonymizing only the data not covered by the tax purpose of the injunction, namely the data concerning holders of CLNs who are not Swedish tax residents and which do not concern Mr. (A) or Swedish residents,” it merely complied with the tax purpose of said decision and with the provisions of the GDPR, while also emphasizing that the CNPD had warned it on this point.
In the alternative, company (AA) requests that the appealed decision be overturned on the grounds that the fine imposed on it is disproportionate and should therefore be reduced to a symbolic €1 “or any other amount that the Court deems equitable.”
In this regard, it essentially reiterates its previous arguments, asserting
that the coercive objective stipulated in Article 5 of the Law of 25 November 2014 had already been achieved
before the disputed fine was imposed, such that the said fine, imposed
after the required information had been provided, is purely
punitive in nature and should therefore be reduced.
While referring to the case law of the administrative courts, it further maintains
that the disputed fine was set without restraint or consideration. It argues, in particular, that the amount of the fine should be reduced in light of its good faith and willingness to cooperate with the administration, as evidenced by its responsiveness to the ACD's correspondence, the steps taken to comply with the GDPR before the data was transmitted, and the complete provision of the required information even before the reminder of January 12, 2026. In this context, it further criticizes the ACD for having imposed a fine on it when they were allegedly at a stage of dialogue.
In light of the foregoing considerations, the applicant company concludes that the contested decision should be overturned.
In its response brief, the government delegate concludes that the administrative tax fine imposed is justified, both in principle and in amount.
After citing Article 2, paragraph (2) of the Law of 25 November 2014, he accuses
the plaintiff of having limited herself, in violation of said article, to providing information relating
to the CLNs held directly or indirectly by Mr. (A) as well as that concerning
holders of Swedish resident CLNs, whereas she is allegedly required, under the injunction order of 11 August 2025, definitively confirmed by the aforementioned judgment of 18 December 2025, to provide a complete list of CLN holders.
He adds in this regard that the applicant's reluctance to provide all the
requested information, despite the existence of a final judgment
confirming the injunction in its entirety, would prevent the
Luxembourg authorities from fulfilling their international obligations and from swiftly exchanging the
required information in accordance with the expedited procedure provided for by the Law of 25 November
2014.
He concludes that, pursuant to Article 5 of the Law of 25 November 2014, the imposition
of a fine would be justified in principle.
As for the amount of the fine, the government delegate explains that it
was set in accordance with a directorate directive, based on objective and
subjective criteria.
6. According to the objective criterion, if the holder of information is a legal entity, the fine would amount to 10% of the total balance sheet value as of December 31 of the year preceding the year in which the fine is set. If no balance sheet has been filed in the year preceding the year in which the fine is set, the most recently filed balance sheet would be taken into account. In all cases, the fine imposed could not be less than €10,000. If no balance sheet has yet been filed, the fine would amount to a fixed sum of €10,000.
The subjective criteria would be:
• Failure to provide the requested information despite a final judgment or a ruling to that effect issued by the administrative courts;
• The manifestly recalcitrant attitude of the information holder, demonstrating an unwillingness to cooperate with the ACD and making it materially impossible for the ACD to respond to the requesting competent authority;
• Failure to respond to the injunction order, the reminder letter, or a partial response to the injunction order, as well as the refusal to provide the missing information; and
• Repeat offenses by the information holder who refuses to cooperate with the ACD.
The presence of one or more subjective criteria would result in an increase in
the fine, which would be in the range of 1 to 3% of the amount of the fine,
determined according to objective criteria, with a minimum of €2,500.
In this case, the disputed fine was allegedly set through a combined application of
these objective and subjective criteria. Specifically, it was allegedly determined based on the
balance sheet total of the plaintiff company, using a sliding scale, and adding a
3% surcharge, due to the plaintiff company's failure to provide the
information despite the judgment of December 18, 2025, and the reminder letter of January 12, 2026.
In light of the above, the government delegate concludes that the appeal should be dismissed as
unfounded.
Court Assessment
Pursuant to Article 2, paragraph (2) of the Law of 25 November 2014: “The holder of the information is obligated to provide the requested information in full, accurately, and without alteration, within one month of notification of the decision ordering the provision of the requested information. This obligation includes the transmission of the unaltered documents on which the information is based.”
Article 5, paragraph (1) of the same law stipulates that: “If the requested information is not provided within one month of notification of the decision ordering the provision of the requested information, an administrative tax penalty of up to €250,000 may be imposed on the holder of the information. The amount is determined by the director of the competent tax administration or their delegate.”
In this case, it should first be noted that the ACD initially
contacted (AA) on August 11, 2025, by way of an injunction requesting the
complete list of those who have CLNs (convertible loan notes) in (AA) S.à r.l., A-H-shares, i.e.,
those who will become shareholders upon redemption) by September 19, 2025, at the latest.
It should then be noted that, by judgment of December 18, 2025, registered under case number 53484, this court dismissed the application for annulment filed by the plaintiff company against the said injunction order, holding in particular that "the injunction order is based on a sufficiently reasoned request from the Swedish tax authorities concerning information that does not appear, manifestly, to be devoid of any plausible relevance with regard, on the one hand, to the taxpayer concerned, and, on the other hand, to the tax purpose pursued, the injunction order of August 11, 2025 thus being sufficient, in its entirety, to meet the criterion of plausible relevance for the tax case in question," said judgment not having been appealed.
The court notes that on January 7, 2026, company (AA) submitted to the ACD
a list containing information relating to the CLNs held by Mr. (A) as well as
those held by Swedish taxpayers.
It must be noted that, after identifying ambiguities and omissions
in the list provided, the ACD, by letter dated January 12, 2026, invited the applicant company
to provide all the requested information and, having failed to comply, imposed an administrative tax penalty on it pursuant to Article 5 of the Law of
November 25, 2014, by the appealed decision of January 26, 2026.
In the context of this appeal, the applicant company argues that the penalty imposed on it is unjustified, contending that it fully complied with the
injunction order of August 11, 2025, since the information transmitted to the ACD on January 7, 2026, constitutes, in its view, the only information relevant to the tax purpose of the Swedish request for information.
However, it must be noted that through this argument, company (AA) is in reality aiming to challenge the scope of the injunction order, specifically the amount of information requested by the ACD, which ultimately amounts to contesting the legality and/or the merits of this decision, which is not the subject of this appeal. Therefore, this argument must be dismissed as irrelevant to the present dispute, which concerns exclusively the administrative tax penalty. It should also be noted that the appeal filed by the plaintiff company against the injunction order was definitively dismissed, for lack of appeal, by the aforementioned judgment of December 18, 2025.
Consequently, by only transmitting information relating to the CLNs held by Mr. (A) and the Swedish taxpayers, when it was incumbent upon it to provide a complete list of the persons holding CLNs during During the period in question, the applicant company
did not, contrary to its claims, comply with the injunction order.
8. It follows that all of its arguments based on the erroneous premise that it
fully complied with the injunction order, and in particular its argument concerning
a violation of Article 5 of the Law of 25 November 2014, are subject to dismissal as being
unfounded.
As for the plaintiff's argument that the transmission of the information requested by the ACD would conflict with the GDPR, this argument must be rejected as it is merely suggested without being substantiated. Indeed, the plaintiff does not cite any specific provision of the said regulation that would have been violated in this case. Furthermore, it is not the court's role to compensate for the plaintiff's shortcomings or to independently investigate the legal grounds that might have formed the basis of its conclusions. As a further point, the court notes that in its judgment of December 18, 2025, registered under case number 53484, it held that, given the likely relevance of the information requested by the Swedish tax authority, the injunction of August 11, 2025, could not be considered disproportionate with regard to the principle of data minimization provided for in Article 5 of the GDPR.
Regarding the plaintiff's argument that no fine could have been imposed on her during the appeal period, the court notes that, pursuant to Article 6(2), paragraph 2 of the Law of November 25, 2014: "Decisions of the Administrative Court may be appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal. The appeal must be lodged within 15 days of notification of the judgment by the registry." The execution of the judgments is suspended during the appeal period. [...] If, as the plaintiff asserts, the judgment of the Administrative Court of December 18, 2025, was notified to her on December 22, 2025, the appeal period would have expired on Tuesday, January 6, 2026, at midnight, it being noted that it is undisputed that the plaintiff did not appeal said judgment. However, since the disputed fine was imposed on January 26, 2026, i.e., after the expiry of the appeal period, no violation of Article 6, paragraph (2), subparagraph 2 of the Law of November 25, 2014, can be established in this case. This argument is therefore also subject to dismissal.
It follows from all the foregoing considerations that the
director was correct in finding that the applicant had not provided the requested information
within the imposed deadlines, and therefore the disputed fine is justified in principle.
As for the amount of the fine, and regarding the criteria established
by the administration for setting the fine, it was determined that the system implemented by the
director through a circular outlines an approach based on minimum amounts which, in light of
aggravating circumstances, allow for an objective increase up to
the maximum amount to be imposed, namely €250,000. These criteria should therefore allow the director
to adjust the amount of the penalty according to the conduct, the seriousness of the offenses, their frequency,
etc.
It was also held that the coercive nature of the fine is exerted through the
deterrent effect of the fear of the financial penalty and, subsequently, through the
risk of having the administrative judge, sitting as the trial judge, uphold the fine, or even
increase, where appropriate, the fine initially imposed during a review
2
Administrative Court, August 13, 2015, Case No. 36452, available at www.jurad.etat.lu.
9pejus. Therefore, fines should be set at a sufficiently dissuasive level in order to
punish the holders involved, but also to deter other holders from
engaging in such dilatory behavior. The fine imposed on the offender must
therefore take into account the deterrence of that same offender, but also of potential offenders. This deterrence is achieved primarily through the imposition of sanctions with
particularly high amounts. However, this necessity cannot disregard
the requirement to respect the general principles of proportionality, individuality, and even
specificity, the seriousness of the facts, the duration of the situation, as well as the requirement of
a specific justification for each fine imposed; the same applies to the discretionary power
granted to the director, who cannot express himself without restraint or consideration. 3
Thus, with regard to the question of the proportionality of the amount of the tax penalty
imposed on the applicant company, amounting in this case to
79,000 euros, the court must first note that the government representative explained in detail the various criteria used to
determine the amount of the administrative penalty imposed, as well as their application to the specific case. The disputed fine thus corresponds to a percentage, determined on the basis of a
degressive scale, of the plaintiff's balance sheet total, amounting to
€76,000, increased by €3,438.05 due to the plaintiff company's failure
to provide the information despite the aforementioned judgment of December 18, 2025, and
despite the reminder of January 12, 2026. The final amount of the fine was rounded down
from (€76,000 + €3,438.05 =) €79,438.05 to €79,000.
Although the administration adhered to its own criteria, as stated by the government delegate and as summarized above, it is nevertheless necessary, within the framework of the appeal before the court, which is required to rule in place of the administration in light of all the legal and factual elements as they stand on the day of its decision, to reduce the fine imposed to the minimum threshold of €10,000, based on the fact that the plaintiff company undeniably provided all the requested information by March 23, 2026. To this amount must be added a surcharge of €2,500 for having provided said information not only outside the deadline imposed by the decision of August 11, 2025, but also approximately four and a half months after the reminder of January 12, 2026.
It follows that the appeal is partially well-founded.
In view of the outcome of the dispute, the costs and expenses are combined and imposed equally on each party.
For these reasons,
the Administrative Court, Third Chamber, ruling in adversarial proceedings;
admits the appeal for review as to form;
3
4 Administrative Court, August 13, 2015, No. 36452 of the roll, Pas. adm. 2025, V° Taxes, No. 1696 and the other references cited therein.
See, for similar cases: Administrative Court, July 5, 2022, No. 47471 of the roll, Administrative Court, November 22, 2022, No. 47971
of the roll, Administrative Court. Administrative Court, November 22, 2022, case no. 47972 and Administrative Court, November 22, 2022, case no. 47973, Administrative Court, February 5, 2024, case no. 49835, all available at www.jurad.etat.lu.
10. On the merits, the Court declares the decision partially justified and, therefore, amending the decision of the Director of the Direct Tax Administration of January 26, 2026, referenced under number …, reduces the fine imposed on the applicant company to €12,500;
and orders each party to pay half of the costs and expenses.
So judged and pronounced at the public hearing of April 15, 2026, by:
Thessy Kuborn, First Vice-President,
Sibylle Schmitz, First Judge,
Felix Hennico, First Judge,
in the presence of the Clerk, Judith Tagliaferri.
s. Judith Tagliaferri s. Thessy Kuborn
Certified true copy
Luxembourg, April 15, 2026
The Clerk of the Administrative Court
11
