In Case C‑788/19

Arguments of the parties

21If the contested legislation were to be regarded as a restriction on the movement of capital, the Commission and the Kingdom of Spain agree that such a restriction could be justified by the need to guarantee the effectiveness of fiscal supervision and by the objective of preventing tax evasion and avoidance. The Commission submits, however, that that legislation goes beyond what is necessary to attain those objectives.

Findings of the Court

22As stated in paragraph20 of this judgment, the need to guarantee the effectiveness of fiscal supervision and the objective of preventing tax evasion and avoidance are among the overriding reasons in the public interest capable of justifying the imposition of a restriction on the freedoms of movement (see, to that effect, judgments of 11June 2009, X and Passenheim-van Schoot, C‑155/08 and C‑157/08, EU:C:2009:368, paragraphs45 and 46, and of 15September 2011, Halley, C‑132/10, EU:C:2011:586, paragraph30).

23With regard to capital movements, Article65(1)(b) TFEU provides moreover that Article63 TFEU is to be without prejudice to the right of Member States to take all requisite measures to prevent infringements of national law and regulations, in particular in the field of taxation.

24In the present case, since the level of information available to the national authorities concerning assets held by their tax residents abroad is, overall, lower than that available to them concerning assets located on their territory, even taking into account the existence of mechanisms for the exchange of information or for administrative assistance between the Member States, the legislation at issue appears appropriate for ensuring the attainment of the objectives pursued. It must, however, be ascertained whether it goes beyond what is necessary to achieve those objectives.