英國樞密院支持澤西島當局發布的一項通知，要求一家信託公司交出有關澤西島法律信託的稅務信息，以便將其轉交給比利時當局。
信託公司 Imperium Trustees (Jersey) Limited 管理阿米拉爾信託 (Amiral Trust)，該信託的唯一受益人是一位居住在英國的比利時國民。該信託的主要資產是一家間接擁有比利時公司的盧森堡公司。比利時當局正在調查是否可以對該比利時公司向盧森堡公司支付的 1.5 億歐元股息徵收預扣稅。 2021 年 12 月，他們根據經合組織《多邊稅收徵管互助公約》和澤西島-比利時雙邊稅收交換協定，向澤西島政府尋求協助。
2022年2月，澤西島主管機關代表財政和資源部長，根據《2014年稅收（實施）（稅收行政互助公約）（澤西島）條例》第2條，正式向Imperium發出了所需通知。 Imperium隨後提交了通知所要求的信息，但同時申請對該通知進行司法審查。澤西島皇家法院雖然駁回了Imperium的申請，但也指示澤西島在Imperium申請上訴許可期間，不得向比利時稅務機關提供任何文件或資訊。
上訴的根本依據是保密性以及《歐洲 人權公約》（ECHR）。然而，具體細節複雜，涉及2000年《人權（澤西島）法》與2018年《國際合作（責任保護）（澤西島）法》（2018年法）之間的相互作用。 Imperium辯稱，爭議並非關於納稅，而是關於在外國稅務機關要求時信託文件的保密性。核心問題在於其根據《歐洲人權公約》第8條享有的權利是否可以被合法干涉，而這必須根據第6條中的民事權利來確定。
2024年，該爭議提交至澤西島上訴法院。上訴法院裁定，政府的資訊請求與《歐洲人權公約》不符。法院接受了Imperium的論點，並認定2018年法律的規定侵犯了《歐洲人權公約》第6(1)條：民事案件中享有公正審判的權利。
澤西島總檢察長兼財政資源大臣隨後向英國樞密院司法委員會（此類案件的終審法院）提起上訴。樞密院的裁決推翻了先前的裁定，認定雙方之間的爭議本質上是關於稅務資訊要求的合法性，而非信託文件保密性的爭議。樞密院在判決書中指出：「《歐洲人權公約》第6(1)條與Imperium質疑根據2008年和2014年《條例》發出的稅務信息通知的合法性一案無關」（Imperium Trustees (Jersey) Ltd訴澤西島主管當局案，2025 UKPC 28）。
總檢察長表示，歐洲人權法院的判例法已確立，稅務事項屬於國家行使公共權力的法律範疇，不屬於「民事權利和義務」的範圍，並指出該裁決「對澤西島至關重要」。財政部長補充說：“澤西島必須擁有健全的國內法律框架，使其能夠及時有效地履行其國際義務。”

UK Privy Council confirms Jersey trustees' duty to hand over tax information

The UK Privy Council has upheld a notice issued by the Jersey authorities requiring a trust company to hand over tax information concerning a Jersey law trust, so that it could be passed to the Belgian authorities.

The trust company, Imperium Trustees (Jersey) Limited, administers the Amiral Trust, whose sole beneficiary is a UK-resident Belgian national. The trust's principal asset is a Luxembourg company that indirectly owns a Belgian company. The Belgian authorities were investigating whether they could charge withholding tax on EUR150 million of dividends paid by the Belgian company to the Luxembourg companies. In December 2021, they duly sought assistance from the Jersey government under the OECD Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters and the bilateral Jersey-Belgium tax exchange agreement.
In February 2022, the Jersey competent authorities, acting on behalf of the Minister for Treasury and Resources, duly issued Imperium with the required notice under regulation 2 of the Taxation (Implementation) (Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters) (Jersey) Regulations 2014. Imperium accordingly handed over the information requested by the notice, but simultaneously applied for judicial review of the notice. Although the Royal Court of Jersey rejected Imperium's application, it also directed that Jersey should not provide any documentation or information to the Belgian tax authorities pending Imperium's application for leave to appeal.
The appeal is fundamentally based on confidentiality grounds and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, the details are complex and concern the interaction between the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 and the International Cooperation (Protection from Liability) (Jersey) Law 2018 (the 2018 Law). Imperium argued that the dispute was not about the payment of tax but the confidentiality of trust documentation when demanded on behalf of a foreign tax authority. The core issue was whether its article 8 ECHR rights can be lawfully interfered with, which had to be determined under civil rights within art. 6.
In 2024, the dispute arrived at the Jersey Court of Appeal. The appeal court ruled that the government's information request was incompatible with the ECHR. Accepting Imperium's arguments, it found that the 2018 Law’s provisions infringed art. 6(1) of the ECHR: the right to a fair trial in a civil case.
Jersey's Attorney General and Minister for Treasury and Resources then appealed to the Judicial Committee of the UK Privy Council, the final court of appeal in such matters. Its decision now reverses the previous finding, deciding that the dispute between the parties is essentially a dispute about the legitimacy of a demand for tax information rather than about confidentiality of trust documents. 'Article 6(1) ECHR is not engaged in the proceedings by which Imperium challenges the legality of the tax information notice issued under the 2008 and 2014 Regulations', said the Privy Council, giving judgment (Imperium Trustees (Jersey) Ltd v Jersey Competent Authority, 2025 UKPC 28).
ECHR case law has established that tax matters are areas of law involving the state's exercise of its public authority and fall outside the scope of 'civil rights and obligations', said the Attorney General, noting that the ruling is 'of great importance for Jersey'. The treasury minister added: 'It is vital that Jersey has a robust domestic legal framework which enables the island to comply with its international obligations…in a timely and effective way'.

Sources
• Jersey government (judgment, PDF)
• Jersey government