24 In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that the tax at issue in the main
proceedings constitutes a stamp duty levied on the remuneration paid to banks for services
relating to the marketing of new subscriptions for shares in common funds. It is also apparent
that, under Portuguese law, the concept of ‘investment funds’ refers to a body of assets, without
legal personality, belonging to the participants under the general regime of community of
property.
25 The Court has already held that a grouping of persons which does not have legal personality and
whose members provide capital for a separate fund with a view to making profits must be regarded
as being an ‘association operating for profit’ within the meaning of Article 2(2) of Directive
2008/7, so that, pursuant to Article 2(2), it is deemed to be a capital company for the purposes of
that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 November 1987, Amro Aandelen Fonds, 112/86,
EU:C:1987:488, paragraph 13).
26 It follows from those considerations that common funds, such as those at issue in the main
proceedings, must be deemed to be capital companies and, consequently, fall within the scope of
Directive 2008/7.
27 Having made those preliminary observations, it should be recalled that Article 5(2)(a) of Directive
2008/7 prohibits Member States from subjecting to any form of indirect taxation whatsoever, the
creation, issue, admission to quotation on a stock exchange, making available on the market or
dealing in stocks, shares or other securities of the same type, or of certificates representing such
securities, by whomsoever issued.
28 However, in view of the objective pursued by that directive, Article 5 thereof must be interpreted
broadly, so as to ensure that the prohibitions it lays down are not denied practical effect. Thus the
prohibition of a taxation of transactions for the raising of capital also applies to transactions which
are not expressly covered by that prohibition, where such taxation is tantamount to taxing a
transaction forming an integral part of an overall transaction with regard to the raising of capital
(see, to that effect, judgment of 19 October 2017, Air Berlin, C-573/16, EU:C:2017:772,
paragraphs 31 and 32 and the case-law cited).
29 Thus, the Court has held that, where an issue of securities has no point until those securities find
investors, a tax on the initial acquisition of a newly issued security is in reality levied on the very
issue of that security as it forms an integral part of an overall transaction with regard to the
raising of capital. The aim of maintaining the practical effect of Article 5(2)(a) of Directive
2008/7 implies, therefore, that ‘issue’, for the purposes of that provision, includes the first
acquisition of securities immediately consequent upon their issue (see, by analogy, judgment of
15 July 2004, Commission v Belgium, C-415/02, EU:C:2004:450, paragraphs 32 and 33).
30 Similarly, the Court has held that the transfer of beneficial ownership of shares, for the sole
purpose of a transaction admitting those shares to listing on a stock exchange and with no
impact on their beneficial ownership, must be regarded as merely an incidental transaction,
integral to that transaction admitting those shares, which, in accordance with Article 5(2)(a) of
Directive 2008/7, cannot be subject to any form of taxation whatsoever (see, to that effect,
judgment of 19 October 2017, Air Berlin, C-573/16, EU:C:2017:772, paragraphs 35 and 36).
8 ECLI:EU:C:2022:1024
JUDGMENT OF 22. 12. 2022 – CASE C-656/21
IM G
ESTÃO DE ATIVOS AND OTHERS