the following document contains references made to the relevant … · 2018-04-30 · prepared by...

COURT OF JUSTICE CASE LAW ON EU CHARTER AND TAXATION (JUNE 2015-MARCH 2018)

EU Charter Case Date Facts Decision Comments

WebMindLicences – C-419/14 17/12/2015

In a case where an abuse of rights by the taxpayer in order to avoid VAT was suspected, the tax authorities used evidence obtained without the taxable person’s knowledge in the context of a parallel criminal procedure that had not been concluded. The evidence was obtained through interception of telecommunications and seizure of emails.

The Court held that EU law must be interpreted as not precluding, the tax authorities from being able, in order to establish the existence of an abusive practice concerning VAT, to use evidence obtained without the taxable person’s knowledge in the context of a parallel criminal procedure that has not yet been concluded, by means, for example, of the interception of telecommunications and seizure of emails, provided that the obtaining of that evidence in the context of the criminal procedure and its use in the context of the administrative procedure do not infringe the rights guaranteed by EU law, including those contained in Article 7 and Article 47 of the EUCFR.

Article 52(1) of the Charter states that any limitation on the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised by the Charter must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. In observance of the principle of proportionality, limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the European Union or the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others (§69).The interception of telecommunications constitutes interference with the exercise of the right guaranteed by Article 8(1) of the ECHR and therefore it also constitutes a limitation on the exercise of the corresponding right laid down in Article 7 of the Charter. The same applies to the seizure of emails in the course of searches at the professional or business premises of a natural person or the premises of a commercial company, which also constitutes interference with the exercise of the right guaranteed by Article 8 of the ECHR (§§71-72). In addition, with regard to observance of the rights of the defence and of the principle of good administration, it is to be observed that Articles 41 and 48 of the Charter, which are mentioned by the referring court, are not relevant in the main proceedings (§83). The right to an effective judicial remedy, guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter: everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by EU law are violated has the right to an effective remedy

The following document contains references made to the relevant European case law for the years 2015-2017 on the protection of those taxpayers’ rights addressed in the General Report. Prepared by Katerina Perrou, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, IBFD - Amsterdam, the Netherlands

before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in that article. (§86).

Puškár - C-73/17 27/09/2017

The taxpayer is included in the “biele kone” list, drawn up, published and used by the tax authority. This list consists of natural persons which the public authorities refer to by the expression ‘biele kone’ (‘white horses’), i.e. persons acting as ‘fronts’ in company director roles. Each natural person is, in principle, together with his national identity number and a tax identification number, associated with a legal person or legal persons within which he is deemed to be performing duties during a determined period.

No violation. The Court held that Article 7(e) of the Data Protection Directive (95/46) must be interpreted as not precluding the processing of personal data by the authorities of a Member State for the purpose of collecting tax and combating tax fraud such as that effected by drawing up of a list of persons such as that at issue in the main proceedings, without the consent of the data subjects, provided that, first, those authorities were invested by the national legislation with tasks carried out in the public interest within the meaning of that article, that the drawing-up of that list and the inclusion on it of the names of the data subjects in fact be adequate and necessary for the attainment of the objectives pursued and that there be sufficient indications to assume that the data subjects are rightly included in that list and, second, that all of the conditions for the lawfulness of that processing of personal data imposed by Directive 95/46 be satisfied.

Article 8 - Protection of personal data

Puškár - C-73/17 27/09/2017 See analysis under Article 7

WebMindLicences – C-419/14 17/12/2015 See analysis under Article 7

Ordre des barreaux francophones et germanophones e.a. – C-543/14

28/07/2016

The Ordre des barreaux complained that (1) by making services supplied by lawyers subject to VAT without taking account, having regard to the right to the assistance of a lawyer and the principle of equality of arms, of whether or not a client who does not qualify for legal aid is subject to VAT, and (2) by subjecting the services supplied by lawyers for clients who qualify for legal aid under a national legal aid scheme to VAT, the right to an effective remedy and the principle of equality of arms were adversely affected.

No infringement. The Court held that that the protection conferred by the right to an effective remedy does not extend to the imposition of VAT on the services supplied by lawyers and also that the guarantee conferred by the principle of equality of arms does not extend to the charging of VAT at the rate of 21% in the case at issue on services supplied by lawyers, irrespective of whether the clients qualified for legal aid or not.

§23: Accordingly, an examination of the validity of Directive 2006/112 must be undertaken solely in the light of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 February 2016 in N., C-601/15 PPU, EU:C:2016:84, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited). §31: the imposition of such costs can be challenged in the light of the right to an effective remedy guaranteed by Article 47 of the Charter only where those costs represent an insurmountable obstacle. §47: In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to part (a) of the first question is that the examination of Article 1(2) and Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 2006/112 in the light of the right to an effective remedy and the principle of equality of arms under Article 47 of the Charter has not revealed anything which might affect its validity in so far as those provisions impose VAT on services supplied by lawyers to clients who do not qualify for legal aid under a national legal aid scheme.

Puškár - C-73/17 27/09/2017 See analysis under Article 7

Câmpean - C-200/14 30/06/2016

Ms Câmpean requested the repayment of a tax levied contrary to EU law that she had to pay on the registration in Romania of a second-hand motor vehicle she had purchased in another Member State and also the payment of interest thereon. The national legislation provided, inter alia, for the repayment in instalments of the sum unduly paid, over a period of five years with annual instalments of 20% of the total

No need to examine the provisions of the Charter. The Court gave guidance to the national court to apply the principle of sincere cooperation, the principle of effectiveness and the principle of equivalence in order to verify whether the national legislation satisfies the requirements arising from those principles.

§70: Notwithstanding the applicability of the provisions of the Charter to a legal situation such as that at issue in the case in the main proceedings, which comes within the scope of EU law, inasmuch as the subject matter of the main proceedings concerns the repayment of a tax levied in breach of Article 110 TFEU and Member States are obliged, under the case-law cited in paragraph 37 above, to pay such a tax and interest thereon, there is no need to

amount claimed, plus interest and legal costs. According to the referring court, such legislation, in so far as it does not allow the enforcement of judicial decisions within a reasonable time, infringes, inter alia, the right to an effective repayment of taxes improperly levied, the right to property and the right to a fair trial.

examine the questions of the referring court in so far as they concern the provisions of the Charter, since the foregoing elements enable that court to give a ruling in the main proceedings.

Berlioz - C-682/15 16/05/2017

In the context of an exchange between national tax administrations pursuant to Directive 2011/16, on the administrative cooperation in the field of taxation, the relevant person does not have a right of access to the whole of that request for information, which is to remain a secret document in accordance with Article 16 of Directive 2011/16. In order for that person to be given a full hearing (as guaranteed by Article 47 EUCFR) of his case in relation to the lack of any foreseeable relevance of the requested information, it is sufficient, in principle, that he be in possession of the key information referred to in Article 20(2) of that directive (namely the identity of the taxpayer concerned and the tax purpose for which the information is sought); the court may provide that person with certain other information if it considers that the key information is not sufficient. According to the same Article 47 EUCFR however, in the context of a judicial review by a court of the requested Member State, that court must have access to the request for information addressed to the requested Member State by the requesting Member State.

Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that a relevant person on whom a pecuniary penalty has been imposed for failure to comply with an administrative decision directing that person to provide information (‘information order’) in the context of an exchange between national tax administrations pursuant to Directive 2011/16 is entitled to challenge the legality of that decision. The second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a judicial review by a court of the requested Member State, that court must have access to the request for information addressed to the requested Member State by the requesting Member State. The relevant person does not, however, have a right of access to the whole of that request for information, which is to remain a secret document in accordance with Article 16 of Directive 2011/16. In order for that person to be given a full hearing of his case in relation to the lack of any foreseeable relevance of the requested information, it is sufficient, in principle, that he be in possession of the information referred to in Article 20(2) of that directive.

Toma - C-205/15 30/06/2016

The taxpayer complained that the right of access to court and in particular the principle of equality of arms is breached when a domestic law provision governing the proceedings before national courts for the enforcement of a judicial decision relating to the repayment of a tax levied in breach of EU law, grants an exemption from the payment of court stamping fees and the lodging of a security only to the requests made by the public authorities, whereas applications which are submitted by natural persons are not, in principle, exempted therefrom.

Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principles of equivalence and effectiveness must be interpreted as not precluding legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which exempts legal persons governed by public law from judicial stamping fees when they lodge an objection to the enforcement of a judicial decision relating to the repayment of taxes levied in breach of EU law and exempts those persons from the obligation to lodge a security at the time of bringing an application for a stay of such enforcement proceedings, while the applications submitted by legal and natural persons governed by private law in the context of such procedures remain, in principle, subject to court costs.

§36: The Court has already stated that Article 47 of the Charter includes, as a component of the principle of effective judicial protection, the principle of equality of arms or procedural equality (see, to that effect, judgment of 17 July 2014 in Sánchez Morcillo and Abril García, C-169/14, EU:C:2014:2099, paragraph 48). Since the latter principle constitutes a specific expression of the general principle of equality before the law found in Article 20 of the Charter, it is appropriate to examine the questions of the referring court set out in paragraph 31 of the present judgment from, in particular, the perspective of Article 47.

Article 49 - Principle of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties

Taricco and others – C-105/14 08/09/2015

Criminal proceedings brought against the taxpayer for offences in relation to VAT. The national rule in relation to limitation periods for those criminal offences provided, at the material time in the main proceedings, that the interruption of criminal proceedings concerning serious fraud in relation to VAT had the effect of extending the limitation period by only a quarter of its initial duration. This rule is liable to have an adverse effect on fulfilment of the Member States’ obligations under Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU if that national rule prevents the imposition of effective and dissuasive penalties in a significant number of cases of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union, or provides for longer limitation periods in respect of cases of fraud affecting the financial interests of the Member State concerned than in respect of those affecting the financial interests of the European Union.

The Court held that the national court must give full effect to Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU, if need be by disapplying the provisions of national law the effect of which would be to prevent the Member State concerned from fulfilling its obligations under Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU. The Court held that the sole effect of the disapplication of the national provisions at issue would be to not shorten the general limitation period in the context of pending criminal proceedings, to allow the effective prosecution of the alleged crimes, and to ensure, if necessary, that penalties intended to protect the financial interests of the European Union and those intended to protect the financial interests of the Italian Republic are treated in the same way. Such a disapplication of national law would not infringe the rights of the accused, as guaranteed by Article 49 of the Charter.

§55: However, subject to verification by the national court, the sole effect of the disapplication of the national provisions at issue would be to not shorten the general limitation period in the context of pending criminal proceedings, to allow the effective prosecution of the alleged crimes, and to ensure, if necessary, that penalties intended to protect the financial interests of the European Union and those intended to protect the financial interests of the Italian Republic are treated in the same way. Such a disapplication of national law would not infringe the rights of the accused, as guaranteed by Article 49 of the Charter. §56: [..] the acts which the accused are alleged to have committed constituted, at the time when they were committed, the same offence and were punishable by the same criminal penalties as those applicable at present. §57: The case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to Article 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, which enshrines rights corresponding to those guaranteed by Article 49 of the Charter, support that conclusion. Thus, according to that case-law, the extension of the limitation period and its immediate application do not entail an infringement of the rights guaranteed by Article 7 of that convention, since that provision cannot be interpreted as prohibiting an extension of limitation periods where the relevant offences have never become subject to limitation (see, to that effect, Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 149, ECHR 2000-VI; Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 110 and the case-law cited, 17 September 2009, and OAO

Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia, no. 14902/04, §§ 563, 564 and 570 and the case-law cited, 20 September 2011).

M.A.S. and M.B. – C-42/17 (Grand Chamber)

05/12/2017

In criminal proceedings for infringements relating to VAT, the Court was asked to interpret Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU as interpreted by the judgment of 8 September 2015, Taricco and Others (C 105/14) (‘the Taricco judgment’).

The Court held that Article 325(1) and (2) TFEU must be interpreted as requiring the national court, in criminal proceedings for infringements relating to VAT, to disapply national provisions on limitation, forming part of national substantive law, which prevent the application of effective and deterrent criminal penalties in a significant number of cases of serious fraud affecting the financial interests of the European Union, or which lay down shorter limitation periods for cases of serious fraud affecting those interests than for those affecting the financial interests of the Member State concerned, unless that disapplication entails a breach of the principle that offences and penalties must be defined by law because of the lack of precision of the applicable law or because of the retroactive application of legislation imposing conditions of criminal liability stricter than those in force at the time the infringement was committed.

Reference to Judgment of 8 September 2015, Taricco and Others (C-105/14.) This case complements the judgment of the Court in the Taricco case.

BB Construct - C-534/16 26/10/2017

Having attained the relevant turnover threshold specified by law, BB Construct applied to be registered for the purposes of VAT. On the basis of certain provisions of the Law on VAT, the tax directorate ordered it to provide a guarantee for a period of 12 months. The amount of that guarantee was EUR 500 000, and it was required to be provided within a period of 20 days. The provision of such a guarantee was justified, according to the tax directorate, because of the VAT arrears of another company, with which the director or associate member of BB Construct had a

Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding, at the time of the registration for the purposes of value added tax of a taxable person, of which the director was formerly the director or associate member of another legal person which had not complied with its tax obligations, the tax authority from requiring that taxable person to provide a guarantee, the amount of which could reach EUR 500 000, provided that the guarantee required from that taxable person does not go further than is necessary in order to attain the objectives of Article 273, which it is for the referring court to determine.

§32: The aim of an obligation to provide a guarantee, such as that in the main proceedings, is not enforcement, given that it is common ground that the legal person applying to be registered has not committed any offence and that the aim of the provision at issue is to ensure the correct collection of VAT in the future. The fact, put forward by the referring court, that, due to its amount, the provision of such a guarantee could be a very heavy burden for the newly established legal person, does not in itself enable, in the present case, that guarantee to be regarded as a criminal

personal or proprietorial connection. The guarantee was adopted in order to prevent fraud and tax evasion. BB Construct disputed the amount of the guarantee. It submitted that the guarantee is disproportionate in view of its turnover, to the point that it interferes with the freedom to conduct a business. That guarantee therefore resembles a retroactive sanction, based on past facts.

penalty for the purposes of Articles 49 and 50 of the Charter. §33: In those circumstances, as submitted by the tax directorate, the Slovak Government and the European Commission, it must be held that Articles 49 and 50 of the Charter are not applicable in the present case.

Joined Cases Orsi and Baldetti – C-217/15 and C-350/15

05/04/2017

The taxpayers complained that the ne bis in idem principle was breached because the were subject to an administrative penalty and a criminal penalty for the same offences, relating to the non-payment of VAT.

No violation. Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which permits criminal proceedings to be brought for non-payment of value added tax, after the imposition of a definitive tax penalty with respect to the same act or omission, where that penalty was imposed on a company with legal personality, while those criminal proceedings were brought against a natural person.

BB Construct - C-534/16 26/10/2017 See analysis under Article 47

Luca Menci – C-524/15 20/03/2018

Luca Menci, in his capacity as proprietor of the sole trading business of the same name, was subject to an investigation by the Italian tax authorities as a result of non-payment of VAT for the tax year 2011. The investigation concluded with the relevant notice of assessment on 6 November 2013 and the imposition on Mr Menci of a penalty of EUR 84 748.74. The tax authorities agreed to Mr Menci’s request to pay in instalments and he paid the first instalments. On conclusion of the administrative proceedings resulting in the imposition of a penalty, the Public Prosecutor’s Office commenced criminal proceedings against Mr Menci on 13 November 2014, on the ground that non-payment of VAT was a criminal offence.

Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation in accordance with which criminal proceedings may be brought against a person for failing to pay value added tax due within the time limits stipulated by law, although that person has already been made subject, in relation to the same acts, to a final administrative penalty of criminal nature for the purposes of Article 50 of the Charter, on condition that that legislation: - pursues an objective of general interest which is such as to justify such a duplication of proceedings and penalties, namely combating value added tax offences, it being necessary for those proceedings and penalties to pursue additional objectives, - contains rules ensuring coordination which limits to what is strictly necessary the additional disadvantage which results, for the persons concerned, from a duplication of proceedings, and - provides for rules making it possible to ensure that the severity of all of the penalties imposed is limited to what is strictly necessary in relation to the seriousness of the offence concerned. 2. It is for the referring court to ensure, taking into account all of the circumstances in the main proceedings, that the actual disadvantage resulting for the person concerned from the application of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings and from the duplication of the proceedings and penalties that that legislation authorises is not excessive in relation to the seriousness of the offence committed.

In its judgment of 26 February 2013, Åkerberg Fransson, the Court established the line to be taken by national courts with regard to a person’s right not to be tried twice for a single breach of the obligation to pay VAT. It did so by incorporating solutions developed by the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) but the application of the reply given in that judgment has created difficulties and disagreements between the courts of some Member States, such as Italy. Furthermore, the ECtHR significantly amended its case-law on the principle ne bis in idem in the judgment of 15 November 2016, A and B v Norway. The Court must decide whether to adopt that new, more restrictive approach to the principle ne bis in idem or to retain a higher level of protection. When clarifying the Åkerberg Fransson judgment, it will therefore be necessary to determine whether the limitation of the principle ne bis in idem recently approved by the ECtHR is applicable in EU law.

Court of Justice EU Charter and Taxation Pending cases (June 2015-Feb 2018)

EU Charter Case Facts AG Opinion Comments

Article 41 - Right to good administration Volkswagen – C-533/16

Time limit for deduction of VAT; between 2004 and 2010, Volkswagen AG received goods from certain suppliers without VAT being included in the relevant invoices. Both parties had wrongly assumed that the transactions in question constituted financial compensation and, as such, were not subject to VAT. When, in 2010, they realised their mistake, the suppliers charged the VAT to Volkswagen and did then issue the relevant invoice stating the amount of tax payable. They also filed a supplementary VAT return and paid the tax to the Treasury. Volkswagen sought to deduct the input VAT but the tax authority allowed the application only in respect of some of the periods claimed, rejecting it in the case of the other periods on the basis that the time limit for exercising the right (five years) had already elapsed.

Opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered on 26 October 2017.

Legal certainty and legitimate expectations; §83:First, the reference to Article 41 of the Charter, which concerns the right to good administration, is not relevant in the main proceedings since that provision is addressed not to the Member States but solely to the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the European Union. (31) As the main proceedings concern the actions of the tax authorities of a Member State, that article is not applicable.

Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial

Dzivev and others – C-310/16

VAT fraud; criminal charges; the evidence was obtained through the deployment of “special intelligence methods"; specifically through the interception of the telecommunications of individuals.

Not yet delivered; Reference for a preliminary ruling lodged on 31 May 2016.

Right to an effective remedy before a tribunal previously established by law.

Donnellan – C-34/17

Irish person was charged in 2009 with administrative penalties and fines by the Customs Office of Patras for alleged smuggling in 2002. The procedure was only explained to the taxpayer in 2015 by a letter ("non-official translation" in English) by the Greek Ministry of Finance to the Irish Revenue

Not yet delivered; Reference for a preliminary ruling made on 24 January 2017.

Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial within a reasonable time; articles 6 and 13 ECHR.

Article 49 - Principle of legality and proportionality of criminal offences and penalties

Scialdone – C-574/15 Criminal sanctions for failure to pay correctly declared VAT. While criminal proceedings against Mr Scialdone were ongoing, the applicable national law was amended and became more lenient. After the new amendment entered into force, Mr Scialdone’s conduct would no longer have been punishable on the basis of the principle of retroactive application of the more lenient criminal penalty. The present case raises fundamental issues concerning the principles of legality and legal certainty, and, in particular, the retroactive application of the more lenient penalty enshrined in Article 49(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’).

Opinion of AG Bobek delivered on 13 July 2017.

Article 49(1) of the Charter; Principle of legality; Retroactive application of the more lenient penalty; Legal certainty. Article 7 ECHR.

ECtHR Case Law on Taxation ( June 2015-Feb 2018)

ECHR Article Case Number Date Facts Result Comments

Chap LTD v Armenia

Application No. 15485/09 04/05/2017

The applicant company was a licensed television broadcaster. In 2007 the tax authorities produced a report in which they found that the applicant company had underreported its tax liability by hiding advertising revenues. The tax authorities relied, inter alia, on documents they had requested from the head of the National Television and Radio Commission (NTRC) and statements from witnesses who claimed that they had not been given a receipt for payments they had made after placing advertisements with the television station. The applicant company was subsequently ordered by the Administrative Court to pay unpaid tax, a 60% fine and surcharges for late payment. In the Convention proceedings, it complained under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) that the Administrative Court had not given it the opportunity to examine the head of the NTRC or the other witnesses at the trial.

Violation of Article 6 & 6(3)(d) - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Administrative proceedings; Criminal proceedings; Article 6(3)(d) - Examination of witnesses; Obtain attendance of witnesses)

The Court found that the head of the NTRC was a “witness” in respect of whom the guarantees of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention applied despite the fact that he had not made any oral or written statements in relation to the applicant company and had provided the relevant documents in his official capacity. For the Court, the fact that he had not made any statements against the applicant company was of no relevance. What mattered was that the information contained in the documents he had provided constituted evidence for the tax authorities and the courts.

Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v Finland

Application No. 931/13 27/06/2017

The first applicant company (Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy) published a newspaper providing information on the taxable income and assets of Finnish taxpayers. The information was, by law, public. The second applicant company (Satamedia Oy) offered a service supplying taxation information by SMS text message. In September 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court directed the Data Protection Board to forbid the processing of taxation data in the manner and to the extent carried out by the applicant companies in 2002.

No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Grand Chamber; Discussion of Article 8 ECHR; See also CJEU C-73/07, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16/12/2008, Tietosuojavaltuutettu v Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy (EU:C:2008:727). Relevance of Directive 95/46 to the balancing of the fundamental rights to privacy and freedom of expression and CJEU case law.

Van Weerelt v the Netherlands(decision)

Application No. 784/14 16/06/2015

In May 2008 the German tax authorities transferred to the Netherlands Tax and Customs Administration a file containing particulars concerning the Netherlands residents under the procedure for spontaneous exchange of tax information (Art. 4 of Dir. 77/799/EEC). The Netherlands tax authorities requested the German tax authorities’ permission to use these particulars in criminal proceedings to be held in public; this was granted. The applicant complained under Article 6 ECHR that he had been forced in civil summary injunction proceedings to lend his active cooperation to the collection of evidence for use against him in tax proceedings in which substantial fines had already been imposed on him. The applicant in particular alleged that the order to surrender information to the tax authorities on pain of penalty payments although the tax authorities had already imposed substantial fines on him constituted a violation of the nemo tenetur principle enshrined in Article 6.

Inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded)

The Court found the case inadmissible, since during the proceedings before the domestic courts, the Dutch Supreme Court had specifically restricted the use of material, the existence of which is dependent on the will of the applicant, only for the levying of taxes and not for the imposition of criminal charges. Therefore, the taxpayer was adequately protected against self-incrimination

Article 7 - Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege

Société Oxygène Plus v France (decision)

Application No. 76959/11 17/05/2016

The applicant benefited from a favorable tax regime compared to the normal taxation of immovable property transfers. In 2002, the tax authorities found that the applicant had not complied with one of the legal conditions of the scheme (keeping of a directory of all the transactions carried out) and considered the anomalies serious enough to justify the lapse of the preferential regime. Tax plus interest was imposed. In the meantime, a new law replaced the measure of the lapse of the preferential regime, in case of irregularity, by a system of fiscal fines. Subsequently, the obligation to maintain a particular repertoire was even removed. The applicant saw reasons for invoking the principle of the application of the softer criminal law. But the Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal on the ground that the new law could not call into question obligations which were duly born on the date of the event giving rise to the tax.

Irrecevable (Ratione materiae) The lapse of the preferential regime does not constitute, in this case, a penalty within the meaning of Article 7.

Article 8 - Right to respect for privacy and family life

Lindstrand Partners Advokatbyrå AB v Sweden

Application No. 18700/09 20/12/2016

Search undertaken on the premises of the applicant law firm by the Tax Agency in the course of audits which were being carried out on two other companies.

No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life; Violation of Article 13 & 8 - Right to an effective remedy

The Court concluded that the search of the applicant’s offices was not disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. The interference was accordingly regarded as having been “necessary in a democratic society”. It follows that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant was denied legal standing and thus did not have access to any remedy for the examination of its objections to the search. In these circumstances, the applicant did not have an “effective remedy before a national authority”. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8.

K.S and M.S v Germany

Application No. 33696/11 06/10/2016

Search warrant issued on strength of evidence allegedly obtained in breach of domestic and international law. The German tax authorities instigated proceedings against the applicants for suspected tax evasion after receiving information about the applicants’ assets held in a Liechtenstein bank. The information (together with data relating to many other account holders domiciled in Germany for tax purposes) had been illegally copied by an employee of the bank and purchased by the German secret service before finding its way to the tax authorities. On the basis of that information, a prosecutor obtained a judicial warrant for the search of the applicants’ home.

No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life

G.S.B. v Switzerland

Application No. 28601/11 22/12/2015

In response to a request from the IRS, the Swiss Federal Tax Administration (AFC) instigated an administrative cooperation procedure and invited the bank UBS to supply detailed files on the customers mentioned in the appendix to an Agreement between the AFC and the IRS. UBS transmitted the applicant’s file to the AFC.

No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life; No violation of Article 14 & 8(1) - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8(1) - Respect for private life).

Disclosure of banking information to tax authorities of another State pursuant to bilateral agreement does not constitute a violation of Art. 8 neither a violation of Art. 14 read in conjunction with Art. 8.

Othymia Investments B.V v the Netherlands

Application No. 75292/10 16/06/2015

Othymia complained that the undertaking of an investigation by the Netherlands Tax and Customs Administration at the request of their Spanish opposite numbers, followed by the transfer of the information thus obtained to the Spanish tax authorities without its prior knowledge, constituted an unwarranted interference with its rights under Article 8. The taxpayer's complain was that the transfer of its tax information to the Spanish tax authorities without its prior knowledge was not “in accordance with the law” because the bilateral arrangement in place did not admit of the investigation by which this information was obtained.

Inadmissible

The case involved exchange of information under Council Directive 77/799/EEC; the Court held that "Whether or not it be correct that Article 28 of the 1971 bilateral treaty opposes investigations by the respondent Party for the purpose of providing information to the Spanish tax authorities as the applicant company argues, the Court therefore finds, consistently with Article 30 § 3 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that that provision is superseded by Council Directive 77/799/EEC." (§39). The Court held that there was an interference with Article 8; such interference will constitute a violation of that Article unless it is “in accordance with the law”, pursues one or more of the “legitimate aims” set out in the second paragraph, and is “necessary in a democratic society”. The Court held that the exchange of information was in accordance with the law, as it was based on Directive 77/799/EEC; it pursued a legitimate aim, as it aimed at ensuring that taxes are paid; and it was necessary in a democratic society, as, according to the Sabou case law, during the investigation stage of the tax proceedings there is no obligation on either the requesting state or the requested state to inform the taxpayer or any other person potentially implicated. §44: "it cannot be a requirement of Article 8 of the Convention that prior notice of lawful tax investigations or exchanges of tax-related information be given to all persons potentially implicated." The ECtHR based its judgment on the Sabou judgment (C-276/12).

M.N. and Others v San Marino

Application No. 28005/12 07/07/2015

Following a request from the Italian judicial authorities, the San Marino court ordered the seizure (in the sense of copying and maintaining a copy) of all relevant information held by banks in San Marino that related to a named company. Among the documents seized, were documents pertaining to the applicant, who was not among the persons against whom criminal proceedings were initiated in Italy. The seizure in the sense of copying of banking data (retrieved from bank statements, cheques, fiduciary dispositions and emails), which the Court considers as falling under the notion of both “private life” and “correspondence”, and the subsequent storage by the authorities of such data, amounts to interference for the purposes of Article 8.

Violation of Art.8

§51:The Court considers that information retrieved from banking documents undoubtedly amounts to personal data concerning an individual, irrespective of it being sensitive information or not. Moreover, such information may also concern professional dealings and there is no reason of principle to justify excluding activities of a professional or business nature from the notion of “private life” (see Amann v. Switzerland [GC], no. 27798/95, § 65, ECHR 2000-II). It follows that the notion of “private life” applies in the present case.

Brito Ferrinho Bexiga Villa-Nova v Portugal

Application No. 69436/10 01/12/2015

The taxpayer was requested to produce copies of her bank account in order to be assessed with VAT on the lawyers' fees she had received in 2005 and 2006, when lawyers' fees were not exempted from VAT. The information was disclosed to the tax authority, following an order from a judicial authority. Since the taxpayer did not have the chance to challenge this order. The Court held that the interference was not proportionate (it was not "necessary in a democratic society").

Violation of Art.8

§59: Eu égard à l’absence de garanties procédurales et d’un contrôle juridictionnel effectif de la mesure litigieuse, la Cour estime que les autorités portugaises n’ont pas ménagé, dans la présente espèce, un juste équilibre entre les impératifs de l’intérêt général et les exigences de protection du droit de la requérante au respect de sa vie privée. Il y a donc eu violation de l’article 8 de la Convention.

Article 10 - Freedom of expression

Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy v Finland

Application No. 931/13 27/06/2017

The first applicant company (Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy) published a newspaper providing information on the taxable income and assets of Finnish taxpayers. The information was, by law, public. The second applicant company (Satamedia Oy) offered a service supplying taxation information by SMS text message. In September 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court directed the Data Protection Board to forbid the processing of taxation data in the manner and to the extent carried out by the applicant companies in 2002.

No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{General} Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings; Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Grand Chamber; Discussion of Article 8 ECHR; See also CJEU C-73/07, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 16/12/2008, Tietosuojavaltuutettu v Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy (EU:C:2008:727). Relevance of Directive 95/46 to the balancing of the fundamental rights to privacy and freedom of expression and CJEU case law.

Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy

Lindstrand Partners Advokatbyrå AB v Sweden

Application No. 18700/09 20/12/2016

Search undertaken on the premises of the applicant law firm by the Tax Agency in the course of audits which were being carried out on two other companies.

No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life; Violation of Article 13 & 8 - Right to an effective remedy

The Court concluded that the search of the applicant’s offices was not disproportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. The interference was accordingly regarded as having been “necessary in a democratic society”. It follows that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant was denied legal standing and thus did not have access to any remedy for the examination of its objections to the search. In these circumstances, the applicant did not have an “effective remedy before a national authority”. It follows that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 8.

Article 1 of the First Protocol to ECHR - Right to enjoyment of possessions

P. Plaisier BV and two others v NL

Application no. 46184/16, 47789/16 and 19958/17

Decision 14/11/2017

The applicant companies complained of a high wages tax surcharge that was imposed retrospectively and thus had been unforeseeable. They also complained that the surcharge had failed to take account of individual financial circumstances, had affected only a very small group of employers, and had caused disproportionate hardship to individuals in relation to its impact on the Government budget.

Inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded)

The Court observed that retrospective tax legislation is not as such prohibited by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as it has accepted that the public interest may override the interest of the individual in knowing his or her tax liabilities in advance, provided that there are specific and compelling reasons for this. The Court concluded that, taking into account the margin of appreciation which States have in taxation matters, the measure in question did not upset the balance which must be struck between the demands of public interest and the protection of the applicant companies’ rights and therefore there was no breach of the right to property by the retroactive imposition of the surcharge.

Johannesson ao v Iceland

Application No. 22007/11 18/05/2017

The applicants, two individuals and one company, complained that they had been tried twice for the same conduct of failing to make accurate declarations for tax assessments: first through the imposition of tax surcharges, and second through a subsequent criminal trial and conviction for aggravated tax offences

Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general}

Application of the criteria developed in A. and B. v Norway, but concludes that there is a violation of the ne bis in idem principle.

A and B v Norway

Applications Nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11

15/11/2016

The taxpayers complained that they had been prosecuted and punished twice – in administrative and criminal proceedings – for the same offence. The applicants alleged more particularly that they had been interviewed by the public prosecutor as persons charged and had then been indicted, had had tax penalties imposed on them by the tax authorities, which they had paid, and had thereafter been convicted and sentenced in criminal proceedings.

No violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general}

Grand Chamber; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Pinto De Albuquerque, at para. 80: "The progressive and mutual collaboration between the two European courts will evidently once again be deeply disturbed, Strasbourg going the wrong way and Luxembourg going the right way."

ECtHR - selected pending cases concerning Taxation ( June 2015-Feb 2018)

ECHR Article Case Number Date Facts Result Comments

Yarkov v Russia (pending)

Application No. 69746/14

15/09/2017 Questions to the parties

As part of an inspection of the applicant’s business, the tax officials interviewed several people and put their testimonies in writing. On 9 January 2013 the tax authority imposed a fine. The applicant was also ordered to pay amounts in arrears for the value added tax; in arrears for the income tax; in arrears for the social contribution, as well as a penalty for the unpaid taxes. On 22 January 2013 the supervising tax authority upheld the decision. The reviewing court then refused examination of the previously interviewed people and three witnesses on behalf of the defence. On 12 December 2013 the court upheld the tax authorities’ decisions in substance, while reducing the above amounts. The court referred, inter alia, to the written testimonies made during the inspection. The appeal court also refused examination of the adverse witnesses and the witnesses on behalf of the defence. On 11 March 2014 the appeal court heard the applicant and his lawyers and pronounced its decision dismissing the appeal. On 22 July 2014 a cassation appeal was dismissed.

Communicated case (pending)

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Was the civil or criminal limb of Article 6 of the Convention applicable to the proceedings (including the inspection, the non-judicial proceedings resulting the decisions of 9 and 22 January 2013 and the ensuing judicial-review proceedings) (see OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos against Russia (dec.), no. 14902/04, § 453, 29 January 2009, and the jurisprudence of the Russian Constitutional Court cited above)? 2. Did the applicant have a fair trial? In particular, was there a violation of Article 6 of the Convention on account of the absence of an opportunity for the applicant to examine or have examined witnesses against him and witnesses on behalf of the defence? Did the applicant have another adequate opportunity to effectively challenge the adverse testimonies obtained during the tax inspection?

De Legé v the Netherlands (pending)



The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that incriminating information was extracted from him under coercion for use as a basis for the imposition of tax fines, in disregard of the privilege against self-incrimination.


Case similar to the Van Weerelt v the Netherlands (dec.), no. 784/14. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that the applicant was coerced into producing incriminating evidence which had an existence independent of his will (compare Funke v. France, no. 10828/84, Series A no. 256-A; Saunders v. the United Kingdom, no. 19187/91, Reports 1996-VI; and J.B. v. Switzerland, no. 31827/96, ECHR 2001-III)?

AVENDI OOD v Bulgaria (pending)



Excise duties. Search and seizure of products by the tax authority for not paying excise taxes. The seizure was later annulled but the tax authority failed to return the merchandise before it became non-marketable.

Communicated case (Pending)

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s right to peaceful enjoyment of its possessions within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? If so, was it lawful and proportionate to one or more of the aims under the second paragraph of that provision? 2. Did the applicant company have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? 3. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention applicable, under its civil head, to the proceedings in the present case? If so, did the alleged failure to enforce the final decision of the Varna District Court of 21 November 2005 ordering the return to the applicant company of the possessions seized as evidence constitute a breach, within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 to the Convention, of the applicant company’s right to access to court?

Arsovska v FYROM (pending)



Taxpayer charged of tax evasion. Confiscation of an amount of money equal to the tax evaded (the "proceeds of the crime"). Criminal charges dropped as they had become time-barred. However the confiscation order was not dropped.


Presumption of innocence; QUESTION TO THE PARTIES: Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case in connection with the adoption of the confiscation order following the discontinuation of the case against the applicant?

Article 8 - Right to respect for privacy and family life

L.B. v Hungary (pending)



The application concerns the publication of the applicant’s name and home address on the website of the National Tax Authority. This measure was foreseen by section 55 (3)-(5) of Act no. XCII of 2003 on Tax Administration, which obliges the National Tax Authority to publish the name, address and taxpayer identification number of tax debtors who owe a tax debt to the Tax Authority exceeding 10,000,000 Hungarian forints (approximately 33,000 euros). Subsequently, an online news portal, using the information from the Tax Authority’s website, produced an interactive map called “national map of debtors”. The applicant’s home address, similarly to the addresses of other tax debtors, was indicated with a red dot and upon clicking on the mark the personal information (name and home address) of the applicant appeared, making these data available to all readers. The applicant’s personal data are still available on the Tax Authority’s website.


QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? 2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? If so, has the applicant availed himself of it?

Epeldimova v Russia (pending)



On-site examination of a person’s flat, which served as an office (not registered) of a company that was charged with tax evasion. During the on-site examination two hard droves were seized, one of which belonged to the applicant. The applicant was not charged with tax evasion but was only a witness in the trial of the general director of the company for which she worked, and who was charged with tax evasion.


QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. As regards the search of the applicant’s flat, was the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, home and correspondence in accordance with the law and “necessary in a democratic society” as required by Article 8 of the Convention? 2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

Samoylov v Russia (pending)



Criminal case against the applicant, a former district prosecutor, who was convicted. In 2009 a major national TV channel broadcasted a show concerning the circumstances of the criminal case; the presenter of the show stated that the applicant lived on an unearned income and that the value of his assets significantly exceeded his revenues. During the show the footage featured the tax declarations of the applicant and the members of his family. The TV channel failed to obtain their consent for the disclosure of their personal data, including tax information.


QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. [not relevant for taxation] 2. As regards the broadcasting of a TV show on 10 September 2009, has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life and home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (compare, Samoylova v. Russia, no. 49108/11, communicated on 13 May 2015)? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy

L.B. v Hungary (pending)



The application concerns the publication of the applicant’s name and home address on the website of the National Tax Authority. This measure was foreseen by section 55 (3)-(5) of Act no. XCII of 2003 on Tax Administration, which obliges the National Tax Authority to publish the name, address and taxpayer identification number of tax debtors who owe a tax debt to the Tax Authority exceeding 10,000,000 Hungarian forints (approximately 33,000 euros). Subsequently, an online news portal, using the information from the Tax Authority’s website, produced an interactive map called “national map of debtors”. The applicant’s home address, similarly to the addresses of other tax debtors, was indicated with a red dot and upon clicking on the mark the personal information (name and home address) of the applicant appeared, making these data available to all readers. The applicant’s personal data are still available on the Tax Authority’s website.


QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and home, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? 2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? If so, has the applicant availed himself of it?

Antonov v Bulgaria (pending)



The courts found the taxes imposed on the applicant to be unlawful, as the activity subject to taxation had been carried out by the agricultural association and not by the applicant himself. While the judicial review proceedings were underway, provisional enforcement proceedings were opened against the applicant. It appears that from 2001 until 2007 a public enforcement officer collected in total BGN 42,386.71 (approximately EUR 21,671). The applicant submitted a request for reimbursement of those amounts but the tax authority denied to repay the amounts collected.


QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Did the failure of the authorities to comply with the final judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court of 28 November 2008 and 12 December 2008 amount to an unlawful or unjustified interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? 2. Did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

Epeldimova v Russia (pending)



On-site examination of a person’s flat, which served as an office (not registered) of a company that was charged with tax evasion. During the on-site examination two hard droves were seized, one of which belonged to the applicant. The applicant was not charged with tax evasion but was only a witness in the trial of the general director of the company for which she worked, and who was charged with tax evasion.


QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. As regards the search of the applicant’s flat, was the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for her private life, home and correspondence in accordance with the law and “necessary in a democratic society” as required by Article 8 of the Convention? 2. Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective domestic remedy for her complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination

B.M. v Croatia (pending)



Unmarried couple. Tax legislation did not take into account the fact that the household consisted of the taxpayer and his partner and her child from previous marriage.


QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 8 and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the manner in which the relevant tax legislation was applied in his case? 2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights in connection with his family situation, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? 3. In view of the applicant’s family situation, has he suffered discrimination on account of the application of the relevant domestic tax provisions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12?

Article 1 of the First Protocol to ECHR - Right to enjoyment of possessions

S.C. Totalgaz Industrie S.R.L. v Romania (pending)



Recalculation of the VAT payable in respect of imported CDs. The company complains of lack of clarity in the existing legislation with regard to the nature of the information recorded on the CDs (is it know-how or a software program? ; is the importation of CDs an importation of assets or an importation of services?). The applicant company also argued that the customs authorities had based the recalculation of the VAT on the provisions of the Fiscal Code (and the regulations governing its implementation), which had not been in force in September 2003. Moreover, the regulations which categorised the software programs as assets had entered in force only on 1 January 2007.


The applicant company complains of the lack of foreseeable legislation applicable to customs duties in respect of the importation of know-how; despite the fact that at the time of the importation in question the only applicable law was decision no. 368/1998, the customs authorities calculated the customs duties according to decision no. 7/2006, while the Iași Court of Appeal applied Law no. 345/2002.

Antonov v Bulgaria (pending)



The courts found the taxes imposed on the applicant to be unlawful, as the activity subject to taxation had been carried out by the agricultural association and not by the applicant himself. While the judicial review proceedings were underway, provisional enforcement proceedings were opened against the applicant. It appears that from 2001 until 2007 a public enforcement officer collected in total BGN 42,386.71 (approximately EUR 21,671). The applicant submitted a request for reimbursement of those amounts but the tax authority denied to repay the amounts collected.


QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Did the failure of the authorities to comply with the final judgments of the Supreme Administrative Court of 28 November 2008 and 12 December 2008 amount to an unlawful or unjustified interference with the applicant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? 2. Did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No.1, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

Baškarad v Croatia (pending)


22/09/2017 Question to the parties

In 2008 the applicant bought a flat. Since that flat was his first real-estate which he bought with the purpose to live in, the tax authorities exempted him from paying the real-estate purchase tax. In 2009 the applicant moved into his mother’s flat with a purpose of taking care of her during illness. In 2012 the tax authorities quashed their decision on tax exemption and ordered the applicant to pay the real-estate purchase tax. Pursuant to the Real Estate Tax Act, as in force at the material time, taxpayers who were initially exempted from paying taxes for the purchase of their first real-estate could have subsequently been ordered to pay taxes in case they disposed themselves of the impugned real-estate within five years from its purchase, or in case the tax authorities subsequently found that the conditions for granting tax exemption were not met. In the present case, the tax authorities interpreted that provision by holding that it also applied to taxpayers who subsequently changed their residence. However, on 17 July 2015 the Constitutional Court rendered a decision in which it held that the impugned provision cannot be interpreted in a manner that a mere change of residence leads to losing of the tax exemption. The Supreme Court gave a similar ruling in its judgment of 29 October 2014.


QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has the decision of the domestic authorities ordering the applicant to pay the real-estate purchase tax violated his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, in particular having regard to the decision of the Constitutional Court no. U-III/1311/2014 of 17 July 2015 and the judgment of the Supreme Court no. U zpz 3/2014-5 of 29 October 2014?

Bežanić v Croatia (pending)


15/06/2017 Question to the parties

Similar to Baškarad v Croatia (pending) Communicated case (pending) Similar to Baškarad v Croatia (pending)

B.M. v Croatia (pending)



Unmarried couple. Tax legislation did not take into account the fact that the household consisted of the taxpayer and his partner and her child from previous marriage.


QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Has there been a breach of the applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 8 and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 on account of the manner in which the relevant tax legislation was applied in his case? 2. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights in connection with his family situation, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention and/or Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? 3. In view of the applicant’s family situation, has he suffered discrimination on account of the application of the relevant domestic tax provisions, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 12?

the following document contains references made to the relevant … · 2018-04-30 · prepared by...

Documents