Go back to News
NEWS
Javier Vinuesa: about 720 | El Confidencial
28 January, 2022
Our tax partner, Javier Vinuesa, collaborates in this article of El Confidencial on the increase of regularizations and claims against the State after the European setback to 720. In particular, Javier mentions:
“The ruling collects all the legal grounds that we have alleged in the open proceedings on this issue. First, the TJEU has confirmed that the 720 regulation is contrary to the free movement of capital. This is important, because it implies that the judgment deploys its effects with respect to investments in other Member States, but also with respect to assets located in third States.”
“We appreciate that the TJEU prevents the questioning of statutes of limitations that have already expired. We have had several cases in which unjustified capital gains have been settled with respect to assets where there was no doubt that they had been acquired in prescribed tax periods. This proof to the contrary only existed in the Spanish rule with respect to assets located in Spain, but did not apply to assets located abroad. From now on, the same rules will apply regardless of where the assets are located”.
El Confidencial
“The ruling collects all the legal grounds that we have alleged in the open proceedings on this issue. First, the TJEU has confirmed that the 720 regulation is contrary to the free movement of capital. This is important, because it implies that the judgment deploys its effects with respect to investments in other Member States, but also with respect to assets located in third States.”
“We appreciate that the TJEU prevents the questioning of statutes of limitations that have already expired. We have had several cases in which unjustified capital gains have been settled with respect to assets where there was no doubt that they had been acquired in prescribed tax periods. This proof to the contrary only existed in the Spanish rule with respect to assets located in Spain, but did not apply to assets located abroad. From now on, the same rules will apply regardless of where the assets are located”.
El Confidencial
Press contact
Director of Business Development, Marketing and Communications
Director of Business Development, Marketing and Communications
More information about
Gómez-Acebo & Pombo
¡NEW! 
PUBLICATION
¡NEW!
Compensation for ‘loss of chance’ to reorganise the company had the banks fulfilled their financing commitments (Supreme Court (First Chamber) Judgment no. 1944/2025 of 23 December)
The Supreme Court applies compensation for loss of chance a second time outside the scope of healthcare liability and goes so far as to compensate cases that would have otherwise remained uncompensated.
¡NEW! 
PUBLICATION
¡NEW!
European reform of the sustainability reporting regime under Directive (EU) 2026/470: consequences of its non-transposition into domestic law
Directive (EU) 2026/470 (Omnibus I) has been published, limiting the obligation to prepare a sustainability report to public-interest entities with more than 1,000 employees and a net turnover of more than €450 million during the preceding financial year, as well as to parent companies of a large group that exceed these figures on a consolidated basis. The Directive amends the audit directive, the accounting directive, the corporate sustainability reporting directive (CSRD) and the corporate sustainability due diligence directive (CSDDD).
¡NEW!
PUBLICATION
2 days ago
Uncertificated share pledge creation, enforceability and avoidance (Supreme Court Judgment no.183/2026 of 10 February)
In Judgment no. 183/2026, of 10 February, the Supreme Court analysed the requirements for the validity and enforceability of an uncertificated registered share pledge and examined the conditions for its avoidance in the context of insolvency proceedings.
2 days ago
PUBLICATION
One week ago
The long arm of the Unified Patent Court based on the "event giving rise to the infringement" and considerations on the application of lex loci protectionis
This paper analyses the decision of the Mannheim Local Division of 2 October 2025, where the Unified Patent Court (UPC) justifies its jurisdiction on the basis of shipment of products from a UPC territory by company listed as authorized representative in the EC and UK markets as event giving rise to damage. Furthermore, although the applicable law with regard to the infringement of the European patent validated in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court is the national law of those States, with regard to the scope of patent protection, the UPC imposes on the defendant—unduly—the burden of proving the specifics of national law.
One week ago
PUBLICATION
03 Mar, 2026
Legal doctrine of the UPC’s Court of Appeal on the patent invalidity defence: is the way in which the ‘long arm’ is applied compatible with the UPC's own Rules of Procedure?
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court has ruled that a patent invalidity defence cannot be raised before the Unified Patent Court, with only a counterclaim being possible. This calls into question the way in which the ‘long arm’ is being applied with regard to European patents validated in States that are not party to the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA), whether or not they are members of the European Union, since no counterclaim for revocation or plea of invalidity as a defence can be filed or raised with regard to such patents. This raises significant doubts about the compatibility of how the ‘long arm’ is applied in the Unified Patent Court system, given its own Rules of Procedure.
03 Mar, 2026
PUBLICATION
26 Feb, 2026
A restructuring plan sanctioned in England and Wales that modifies debt subject to German law has no effect in Germany
Recognition of UK restructuring plans remains a contentious issue in the European Union. This decision by the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court is controversial, but it raises questions about the consequences of the application of the rule in Gibbs by the courts of England and Wales in this context.
26 Feb, 2026
PUBLICATION
26 Feb, 2026
Pharma & Healthcare No. 47
The newsletter covers the main developments in Pharma & Healthcare legislation and case law.
26 Feb, 2026
PUBLICATION
23 Feb, 2026
Irregularities in public sector staffing. Jurisdiction and/or substantive law
When a serious irregularity is found in administrative contracts owing to their employment character, jurisdiction lies with the employment branch of the court system. However, if the administrative route is not outside the scope of the law, jurisdiction lies with the judicial review branch of the court system.
23 Feb, 2026
PUBLICATION
17 Feb, 2026
Squeeze-out of minority shareholders following successful mandatory takeover bid: rebuttable presumption of fair consideration
The Court of Justice of the European Union (Fifth Chamber), in its judgment of 27 November 2025 (Case C-567/24, Svema Trade), concerning the equitable price in a squeeze-out requiring minority shareholders to sell their shares to an offeror who, following a mandatory takeover bid, has acquired more than 90% of the capital carrying voting rights in the company subject of the takeover bid, states that the presumption that the price offered in the bid, in the context of such a squeeze-out of holders of securities, is equitable is rebuttable.
17 Feb, 2026