Agefi Luxembourg - novembre 2025

AGEFI Luxembourg 32 Novembre 2025 Droit / Emploi L emonde a changé et il changera encore. Le vieillissement démo- graphique et la baisse de la disponibilité de lamain- d’œuvre sont une réalité et ces tendances s’accentueront au cours des prochaines an- nées. Au Luxembourg, parmi les 55-64 ans, moins d’une personne sur deux travaille, contre presque 70%enmoyenne dans les pays de l’OCDE. Partant du constat que cette si- tuation n’est pas durable et qu’elle constitue une énorme perte pour le monde actif, l’Union des Entreprises Luxem- bourgeoises (UEL) a collaboré avec les associations de profes- sionnels du recrutement et des ressources humaines au Luxem- bourg, la fr2s (Federation for Re- cruitment Search & Selection), HR Community et FES (FEDIL Employment Services) pour réa- liser une enquête, auprès de leurs membres, sur le recrutement des seniors au Grand-Duché. Les résultats de ce Baromètre de l’emploi, dont les principaux sont mentionnés dans ce communi- qué, mettent en lumière l’enjeu stratégiquedel’emploidesseniors tout en montrant les réalités du terrain, les idées préconçues et le besoind’actionsdel’ensembledes acteurs:lesentreprises,lessalariés etlespouvoirspublics.Ilenressort unpotentiel économique, social et sociétal sous-exploité. Passer au-delà des préjugés Le Baromètre nous enseigne le besoinde dépasser certaines per- ceptions erronées freinant l’em- bauche des seniors et d’élargir le spectre de leurs opportunités de recrutement. Il ressort par exemplede cette en- quête que les seniors sont princi- palement envisagés pour des rôles d’encadrement souvent as- sociés à des niveaux de salaires trop élevés alors qu’ils aspirent parfois à occuper un poste opé- rationnel sans n’avoir nécessaire- ment ni l’envie ni la vocation à diriger une équipe. Les seniors sont aussi souvent lu- cides sur leur valeur sur le mar- ché à un instant donné et peuvent se montrer plus modé- rés dans leurs attentes salariales, notamment parce qu’ils sont dans une nouvelle étape de leur vie, ont déjà sécurisé certains as- pects personnels ou souhaitent se concentrer davantage sur le contenu et la signification d’un poste que sur sa rémunération. En parallèle, les entreprises et les recruteurs doivent intégrer cette réalité, dépasser les réflexes d’au- tocensure et oser envisager une plus grande diversité de postes pour les seniors. Informer et agir sur les dispositifs incitatifs Le Baromètre nous enseigne qu’un expert du recrutement sur trois ignore l’existence de dispo- sitifs favorisant l’embauche ou le maintien en emploi des seniors. Enoutre, unquart d’entre eux es- time que ces dispositifs sont ac- tuellement insuffisants. Le renforcement des incitations financières est le levier prioritaire identifié par les professionnels du recrutement, bien que l’évo- lution des mentalités et la sensi- bilisation accrue des individus et des employeurs soient aussi plé- biscitées. Valoriser les seniors Le Baromètre dresse un constat sans appel : 80% des experts du recrutement estiment que les se- niors ne sont pas assez valorisés. Les seniors ont pourtant tout au- tant d’atouts à faire valoir et une proposition de valeur à démon- trer. Ils offrent notamment une fiabilité et une stabilité qui fait de leur embaucheunchoixdurable ! Avec les résultats et les actions mis en exergue dans ce Baromè- tre, l’UEL, la fr2s, FES et HR Community veulent faire évo- luer les mentalités et le regard sur les seniors pour les inscrire dans l’avenir. Le Luxembourg a besoin de plus de seniors au tra- vail : c’est un enjeu stratégique, essentiel pour préserver à la fois le développement économique et le modèle social. Il concerne tous les acteurs, qui doivent s’im- pliquer et agir positivement à leur niveau. Réimaginer l’emploi des seniors, enjeu stratégique pour le Luxembourg © iStock O n 24October 2025, the Luxem- bourgAdministrative Tribunal ( TribunalAdministratif, 24Oc- tobre 2025, n°52988 ) (the “Administrative Tribunal” or the “Tribunal”) assessed themerits of a request of exchange of in- formation (“EOI”) in light on the fore- seeable relevance criteria. Summary of the case In February 2025, the Belgian tax authoritiessubmittedarequestfor EOI to their Luxembourg coun- terparts.Broadly,theyaskedtobe providedwithacopyofaspecific copyright license agreement, the identity of any parties to that agree- ment who were Belgian tax residents, and the methodology and calculations underpinning the de- terminationof the copyright fees. Finding the request both formally valid and of fore- seeablerelevance,theDirectoroftheLuxembourgDi- rect Tax Administration complied and issued an injunction in May 2025 compelling the taxpayer to producetherequestedinformation.However,thetax- payerrefusedtocomply,arguingthattheinformation was not foreseeably relevant, and subsequently lodgedanappeal before theAdministrativeTribunal seeking the annulment of the injunctiondecision. Judgement of theAdministrativeTribunal The Administrative Tribunal’s judges opened their reasoning bynoting that the EOI upon request relied onbytheBelgiantaxauthoritieswasbasedonseveral Europeanandinternationalinstruments,andnotably on the EU Directive 2011/16/UE on Administrative Cooperation (the “ DAC ”) and the double tax treaty betweenBelgiumandLuxembourg. In this respect, consistent with previous case law (1) , theyrecalledthatunderEUlaw,theDACshouldtake precedence between Member States and, together withtheLuxembourglawof29March2013(the“ Law of 2013 ”) that implemented it into Luxembourg leg- islation, the judges defined the legal framework ap- plicable to the injunctionunder review. Having set the stage, the Tribunal emphasized that, pursuanttoArticle6bisoftheLawof2013,thetaxau- thorities are only required to communicate the infor- mationreferredtointherequesttotheextentthatthey consider that “in accordance with [their] national law, thereisareasonablepossibilitythattherequestedinformation will be relevant to the tax affairs of one or several taxpayers […] and be justified for the purposes of the investigation ”. The Tribunal further referred toArticle 3 of the Lux- embourg law of 25 November 2014 according to which the required tax authorities should: 1. Check the formal admissibility of the request; and 2.Ensurethattherequestedinformationisnotentirely devoidofforeseeablerelevancewithrespecttoeither: i) the identity of the person targetedby the request, ii) the identity of the informationholder, or iii)thepurposeofthetaxprocedurebeingconducted. In the case at hand, the judges placed particular em- phasis on the concept of “foreseeable relevance”. In line with prior rulings, they reaffirmed that a re- quest constitutes aprohibited fishing expedition where itsstatedobjectivefailstojustifytherequestingauthor- ity’s belief that the specific data sought is reasonably likely to be pertinent, given the subject of the inquiry or the identity of the taxpayer(s) targeted. The Tribunal reiterated that its role in suchmatters is deliberately limited: it is confined to assessing the overall coherenceandplausibilityof theexplanations provided.Inprinciple,theadministrativejurisdictions should neither review the conformity of the request withthedomesticlawoftherequestingauthority,nor verify the factual accuracy of the facts and circum- stances underlying the request. Nonetheless, the judges underscored that this re- strained role admits one important exception. If the person contesting a director’s injunction produces concrete, detailed evidence capable of undermining theforeignauthority’srequestonessentialelements– thus seriously questioning the likely relevance of the information sought or other prerequisites for ex- change (such as the exhaustion of domestic sources) – the Tribunalmay justifiably intervene. In the case at hand, the Tribunal found that the claimant submittedcredible evidencedemonstrating that the copyright licensing agreement at issue had beenterminatedbyallthelicensorsandthatitwasno longer in force during the period covered by the in- junctiondecision. Accordingly, the Tribunal concluded that these ele- ments cast serious doubt on a key aspect of the infor- mation exchange request – namely, the existence of a validcopyright licensing contract during the relevant fiscal period. Consequently, the court held that the plausibility of the information sought in the chal- lengedinjunctiondecisionwasundermined,warrant- ing its annulment on these grounds. Key takeaways The EOI upon request has become a cornerstone of international tax transparency. Originally developed under the auspices of the OECD’s 1992 Model Tax ConventionanditsArticle26,andfurtherfor- malized through the OECD’s 2002 Model AgreementonExchangeofInformationon Tax Matters, the mechanism was de- signedtocombatcross-bordertaxevasion by allowing tax authorities to request specific, taxpayer-related information fromforeign counterparts “ to the widest possibleextent ”.TheOECD’ssubsequent standards, endorsed by the G20, transformed the practice from a discretionary tool into a global obligation. Overtime,theprincipleof“fore- seeable relevance” emerged as thekeysafeguard,balancingef- fectivecooperationandthepro- tection of taxpayers against indiscriminate fishing expeditions . Broadly, when a re- questingauthority fails todemonstrate that the infor- mation sought is foreseeably relevant to a specific tax examinationorinvestigation,therequestedauthority may legitimatelydecline the request. Within the EU, this international framework was re- inforced by the DAC, which harmonized and ex- panded the EOI between Member States. The DAC established commonprocedural rules and legal obli- gations, later strengthened through successive amendments (DAC 2 – DAC 9), reflecting the EU’s ongoing commitment to tax transparency and the fightagainstbaseerosionandprofitshifting.Earlyin- dications of the scope of foreseeable relevance were providedin DAC1 ,notablyrecital9andArticle20(2), which required that a request identify the taxpayer, the fiscal purpose of the information, and sufficient context to establish relevance. In linewithOECD standards, the Luxembourg Law of 2013 adopted the principle of “foreseeable rele- vance”todefinethescopeofinformationthatmaybe exchanged upon request. In their early days, the do- mestic rules on the EOIwere challengedon a regular basis,notablyinlightoftheEUCharterofFundamen- tal Rights, which led Luxembourg and EU courts to progressively clarify such standard: - In the landmark case “Berlioz” (2) , the CJEU con- firmed that the judicial review in the requested state is limited to ensuring that the information request is notmanifestlydevoidof foreseeable relevance, with- out assessing thematerial facts or substantive tax law of the requesting state. - This principle was reinforced in CJEU joined cases renderedinOctober2020 (3) ,whichspecifiedthateven preliminary or broadly described information could satisfy the foreseeable relevance criterion, provided it relatestoadefinedtaxpayer,coversarelevantperiod, and bears a sufficient connection to the tax under in- vestigation. - In 2021 (4) , the CJEU further clarified that a request may concern a group of taxpayers identifiable through common characteristics, not necessarily named individually, ensuring the effectiveness of information exchange while protecting the taxpay- ers’ rights. Since the Berlioz case, Luxembourg administrative courts have consistently applied the principles set forthby theCJEU, hence leading to judgementswith generallypredictable outcomes. Notably: - Administrative jurisdictions do not examine the material facts or compliance with the requesting state’s tax law ; any challenge based on inaccuracies mustbeaddressedtothecompetentauthoritiesofthe requesting state. (5) -Minimalinformation–taxpayeridentityandfiscal purpose–issufficient tojustifyforeseeablerelevance in an injunctiondecision. (6) - Requests satisfy foreseeable relevance when rea- sonablyrelatedtothetaxpayerandinvestigation,even when concerning a group of companies. Procedural safeguards, such as limiting disclosure to taxpayer identity and fiscal purpose, are sufficient to protect rightswhilemaintaining effective cooperation. (7)(8) Overall,intheirdecisions,Luxembourgjudgesseem- ingly aim to achieve a careful balance: requests must be sufficiently circumscribed to avoid fishing expedi- tions , yet flexible enough to allowmeaningful infor- mation exchange. In recent years, however, while therehasbeenlittletonodeviationfromthejudgesin the reasoning followed to assess the legitimacy of the procedurechallenged,onemayobservethatdisputes on EOI for tax matters have not even slightly de- creased (dozen of cases are referred to the Tribunal everyyear),suggestingpersistentmisunderstandings by taxpayers, or theirdissatisfactionwith theprocess. In practice, Luxembourg administrative jurisdictions maintain a high evidentiary standard, almost invari- ablyconcludingthatclaimantshavefailedtosubstan- tiatealackofforeseeablerelevance,andthusrulingin favor of tax authorities. In this context, this new judgement is notable as one of the rare instanceswhere the taxpayer’s appeal suc- ceeded,withthejudgesacceptingthefactualevidence presented to challenge the relevance of the informa- tion requested. Since the taxpayer was effectively re- quired to prove that the transaction in question no longer existed for the period covered by the request, onemayeasilyunderstandwhysimilaroutcomesare seldomachieved. Inlightofthehighevidentiarythreshold,westrongly recommend taxpayers consult experienced tax pro- fessionalstodeterminethemostappropriatestrategy when facing an injunctionbasedon anEOI request. EmilienLEBAS, Partner,HeadofInternationalTax, Taxcontroversy&disputeresolution leader ValentinePLATEAU, Manager,InternationalTax KPMGLuxembourg 1)AdministrativeCourt,8June2022,no47527C 2)CJEU,16May2017,C-682/15 3)CJEU,6October2020,C-245/19andC-246/19 4)CJEU,25November2021,C-437/19 5)AdministrativeTribunal,20June2022,n°45672;Administrative Court,7March2023,n°48650C 6)Administrative Court, 17November 2022, n°47734C;Admin- istrativeCourt,20April2023,n°48650C 7)AdministrativeTribunal,9October2023,n°48716and48717 8) For a detailed analysis of the DAC and in particular of these ECJdecisionsandadministrativecourtdecisionsandjudgments, refer inter alia to E. Lebas, La directive sur la coopération admin- istrative 1 à 8 et au-delà - Précis de droit fiscal international, 12 March2024,Legitec. Tax controversy series Administrative Tribunal - Judgement on the foreseeable relevance concept in the context of exchange of information