Iwona Krzemiska, 4

th
year, WPIA UW
Human rights expansion into the tax field European perspective
Introduction
1. Articles of the uro!ean "on#ention on $uman %i&hts a!!lied in ta' cases
1.1. Article ( of "$% )%i&ht to a fair trial*
1.1.1. Unreasona+le len&th of !roceedin&s
1.1.,. -he ri&ht to a court
1.1... %i&ht to silence
1.1.4. /e&al aid
1.1.0. 1on2herita+ility of criminal char&es
1.,. Article 1 of the 3irst Protocol to "$% )ri&ht to en4oyment of
!ossessions*
1... Article 4 of the 5e#enth Protocol to "$% )non +is in idem !rinci!le*
1.4. Article 14 )!rohi+ition of discrimination*
1.4.1. "ases where discrimination was not esta+lished
1.4.,. "ases where discrimination was esta+lished
,. 3reedoms linked in some cases with ta'ation
,.1. 3reedom of reli&ion
,.,. 3reedom of e'!ression
,... 3reedom of association
.. Im!act of the "t$% rulin&s for6
..1. Pu+lic re#enues and e'!enditures 7 3rench e'am!le
..,. 5u+stanti#e law 7 'am!le of stonia
.... -a'!ayers8 com!ensation
"onclusions
1
Introduction
-o introduce the to!ic of human ri&hts and ta'ation I would like to refer to the
9uestion !osed +y the key2author in the field of human ri&hts and ta'ation, Professor Phili!
:aker who says6 We should ask oursel#es2 $ow many ta' systems are +ase in laws that are in
e#ery res!ect accessi+le, !recise and foreseea+le in their a!!lication; <+#iously there is a
room for im!ro#ement
1
. $owe#er, it seems that human ri&hts seem to +e definitely far from
+ein& directly associated with ta'es in the !u+lic o!inion, es!ecially in Poland. 3ollowin& the
words +y Professor Philli! :aker6 =Some would say that taxation and human rights is an
oxymoron. () I personally do not believe that taxation and human rights are in any way
irreconcilable or conflicting; I think human rights are a fundamental aspect of taxation.
uman rights limit what governments can do to their citi!ens " to people affected by their
decisions () provide limits to what governments can do to taxpayers.>
,
.
.
.
In the years 1?0?2,@11 near the half of the 4ud&ments in which the "ourt found a
#iolation included a #iolation of Article (, whether on account of the fairness or the len&th of
the !roceedin&s. 3urthermore, 0AB of #iolations found +y the "ourt concerned Article ( and
Protocol 1 Article 1 )Protection of !ro!erty*
4
. And these articles are also most often a!!lied in
ta' cases.
1. Articles of the European Convention on Human Rights applied in tax cases
1.1. Article 6 of ECHR (Right to a fiar trial
-he most im!ortant of the "$% !ro#isions in the ta' conte't is the ri&ht to a fair
trial. -his is to +e found in Article ( of the uro!ean "on#ention, which +e&ins6 =In the
determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him#
everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent
and impartial tribunal established by law>.
It is a!!lied to +oth ci#il and criminal cases. In criminal cases, there are some
additional &uarantees 2 !resum!tion of innocence in section ,, ri&ht to le&al aid in section .. It
should +e considered first whether these &uarantees a!!ly to ta' !roceedin&s. And ne't,
whether in ta' matters we en4oy the ri&ht to a fair trial and to all the ri&hts that Article (
1
Grau Ruiz M.A., Decisions of the ECHR affecting domestic laws in the financial and tax field, Lex ET Scientia International
Journal, 2011, Vol. 9, p.1
2
!a"er #., Taxation and Human rights, in$ GIT% Re&ie' 2001, p.(, a&aila)le 2*.0(.2012 at$
+ttp$,,'''.tax)ar.co-,.ocu-ent/,0itc1re&ie'1&11n1.p.2,
3
I)i.e-, p. *
4
Stati/tic/ 19(9 to 2011, European %ourt o2 3u-an Ri0+t/, a&aila)le 2(.0(.2012 at
+ttp$,,'''.ec+r.coe.int,4R,r.onl5re/,E(6E0(A781%976*:791EE7889%:9;16!2,0,A#ER%<119(920111E4.p.2
2
encom!asses. Cost ta' lawyers and ta' ad#isors would say at first that in ta'ation matters we
are not concerned with ci#il o+li&ationsD we mi&ht +e concerned with criminal char&es.
$owe#er, the 5tras+our& <r&ans ha#e said that this !hrase has to +e &i#en an =autonomous
con#ention meanin&> 7 a meanin& which has to +e common from "ork to Eladi#ostock
0
.
In !articular, it should +e noted that in many continental uro!ean countries, which do
not ha#e the ad#anta&e of the common law, ta' is an area of administrati#e or !u+lic law6 it is
not a ci#il law matter. A 3rench lawyer for e'am!le would say that ta' is not a ci#il matter +ut
an administrati#e one and therefore does not come within Article (. :ut he would add that
administrati#e !enalties, such as ta' fines are criminal matters. And that is +roadly what the
"ourt has said 7 that Article ( does not a!!ly to ordinary ta' !roceedin&s, +ut it does a!!ly to
!enalty !roceedin&s or fines
(
. In the Polish system, ta' law is considered as a !art of !u+lic
financial law, definitely not ci#il law, althou&h there are some connections +etween +oth.
Penalties are amon& others deri#ed from criminal law )%e#enue Penal "ode*.
-here is a lon& line of cases, &oin& +ack to the early 1?(@s, in which was said that the
ri&ht to a fair trial does not a!!ly to ordinary !roceedin&s for the determination of a ta'
lia+ility. -o say that an indi#idual challen&in& ta' does not ha#e a ri&ht to a fair trial, sounds
ridiculous. $owe#er, the conclusion follows from the autonomous "on#ention meanin&. In
,@@1 "t$% has reconsidered its !osition on this !oint in the case of $erra!!ini v. Italy
%
. In
this case the Frand "ham+er has re#iewed the 4uris!rudence. In short, $erra!!ini was one of
,,@@@ Italian delay cases, where the ta' a!!eal has taken more than ten years to come to court,
which e#en in Italy is a #ery lon& time. $owe#er, the "ourt decided not to chan&e its !osition
and held that in a case concernin& only ta' assessment, the "on#ention does not &rant the
ri&ht to a fair trial. 5o, in $erra!!ini it was clearly stated that ta' dis!utes fell outside the
sco!e of ci#il ri&hts and o+li&ations
A
.
<n the other hand, there is a num+er of cases in which the "ourt has found that serious
ta' !enalties are criminal for Article ( !ur!oses, des!ite their administrati#e character in
domestic systems. -he leadin& case is &endenoun v. $rance
?
. It is a case a+out the 3rench
!enalty for =manoeu#res frauduleuses>. -he ta'!ayer com!lained of the lack of a fair trial and
the "ourt said that since this was a serious !enalty the ta'!ayer had all the criminal
5
!a"er #., Taxation and Human rights, in$ GIT% Re&ie' 2001, p.(, a&aila)le 2*.0(.2012 at$
+ttp$,,'''.tax)ar.co-,.ocu-ent/,0itc1re&ie'1&11n1.p.2,
6
I)i.e- p.6
7
9errazzini &. Ital5, application nu-)er 8(9,96, reporte. in 2001 : ITLR 916
8
Grau Ruiz M.A., Decisions of the ECHR affecting domestic laws in the financial and tax field, Lex ET Scientia International
Jornal, 2011, Vol. 9, p.:
9
!en.enoun &. 9rance, application nu-)er 12(8,6*, reporte. 199. 199 16 E3RR 54
3
&uarantees. In decidin& whether the ci#il ta' !enalties in the &endenoun case were to +e
created as criminal !enalties, the "t$% mentioned four factors to +e taken cumulati#ely into
account in makin& such determination. -he 3rench &o#ernment maintained the ta' !enalties
im!osed on &endenoun +ore all the hallmarks of administrati#e !enalty. :ut "t$% in the
li&ht of its case law noted that the four factors !ointed in another direction6
2 -he Article 1G,? of the "ode a!!lies to all ta'!ayers and re9uires a certain
conduct im!osin& !enalties in case of non2com!liance
2 -he !enalties are intended as !unishment and not as com!ensation for dama&e
2 -he !enalties are im!osed under a &eneral rule, whose !ur!ose is +oth to !unish
and to deter
2 -he !enalties are su+stantial and e'!ose the ta'!ayer to !rison if he or she fails to
!ay them.
$owe#er, until this case the "ourt had taken into account only three factors )the
classification of the offence under domestic law as disci!linary or disci!linary and criminal,
the !recise nature of the offence, the nature and the de&ree of seriousness of the !unishment*,
and these could +e considered alternati#ely. It is su+mitted that in &endenoun the court did not
intended to o#errule its !re#ious case law and the statement that four factors must +e !resent
and taken cumulati#ely is no more than an unfortunate turn of !hrase. In its re!ort the
commission correctly a!!lies the case law of the court. It is su+mitted this analysis is to +e
!referred to the analysis made +y the "ourt
1@
.
-here was a similar findin& in the '(# )( and *( v. Swit!erland
11
case. In
5witzerland, if a ta'!ayer is in#ol#ed in ta' e#asion, there is a ma'imum 4@@B !enalty. -he
"ourt said that this was clearly criminal. In ++ v. *he ,etherlands
-.
there was a 1@@B
ma'imum !enalty and this was deemed as criminal. -he conclusion is that su+stantial ta'
!enalties for ne&li&ent or fraudulent su+mission of ta' returns are re&arded as criminal and all
the criminal !rotections a!!ly
1.
.
5o, where the !roceedin&s in#ol#e the determination of ci#il ri&hts and o+li&ations,
only Article ( s.1 a!!lies. Where, howe#er a criminal char&e is in#ol#ed, the additional
&uarantees in Article ( s., and s.. also may +e a!!lied.
-he uro!ean "ourt of $uman %i&hts recently 4ud&ed that a !ro#ision of the 3rench
-a' "ode allowin& the 3rench ta' administration )3-A* to carry out a search in any !lace of
+usiness is incom!ati+le with article (.1 of the uro!ean "on#ention )3e+ruary ,1 ,@@AD
10
9ro--el S., Fair trial extended to tax penalties, International Tax Re&ie', Jun. 199, p.:971
11
A, ! and T "# $wit%erland, Application 4o. 199(6,92
12
&#&# "# The 'etherlands, Application 4o$ 21:(1,9:, #u)lication$ 19967II, no. *6
13
!a"er #., Taxation ( p.9
4
n1A4?GH@.D .rd section, %a#on and others*. -he !ro#ision at stake, article / 1( : of the I/i#re
des !rocedures fiscalesI was enacted in 1?A4. It allows the 3-A to ins!ect any !rofessional
location when a ta'!ayer is sus!ected not to +e com!liant with its ta' o+li&ations. -he non
com!liance conce!t encom!asses a +road sco!e of situations. When a #isit is made +y the
3-A accordin& to this !ro#ision, it looks like a criminal in#esti&ation, with many officials
arri#in& early in the mornin&, seizin& documents, in#oices and any !a!er linked to the
+usiness. Until 1?A4, the 3-A o!erated with the su!!ort of a !ro#ision which was written at
the end of World War II, in order to control the !rices of &oods. Usin& such an outdated
!ro#ision for ta' !ur!oses was finally considered as a di#ersion of the law. 3or this reason a
new law was enacted. When !re!arin& the new law, the 3-A had to create a tool ena+lin&
them to ha#e the means of a criminal in#esti&ation without losin& the control of the
!roceedin&s to a 4ud&e. 5o it was decided that a 4ud&e must a!!ro#e an 3-A #isit +efore it
takes !lace. -o &et the 4ud&eJs !ermission, the 3-A has to !ro#e it has sufficient e#idence to
sus!ect fraud. If the 4ud&e !ermittin& the #isit is not familiar with ta' issues then the elements
used +y the 3-A may sometimes +e 9uestiona+leD for e'am!le, they can include unrelia+le
statements +y a com!etitor or an em!loyee who has +een dismissed. In order to +alance the
lack of 9uality of such kind of information, the 3-A tries to &i#e the 4ud&e a si&nificant
num+er of documents. As a conse9uence, the 4ud&e has a few hours to e'amine hundreds or
thousands of !a&es of !a!er +efore makin& his decision. When the 3-A recei#es e#idence of
fraud, it can do without makin& a #isit. -he #isit is only necessary when there is sus!icion, not
e#idence. In this conte't, the !art of the 4ud&e is to &uarantee that the facts on which the
sus!icion lies are #alid. It is !recisely +ecause of the 4ud&eJs role that the "$% was a+le to
a!!ly article ( of the uro!ean "on#ention which aims to &uarantee a ri&ht to a fair trial. -his
!ro#ision is not a!!lica+le to ta' matters +ut, +ecause of 4ud&eJs role, the "$% decided that
Article ( of the con#ention was a!!lica+le. -he "t$% decided on #iolation of Article (
+ecause of two reasons. -he first is that the decision of the 4ud&e allowin& the #isit may only
+e 9uestioned from a formal !oint of #iew. 5econdly, the relia+ility of the documents which
were used +y the 4ud&e to make his o!inion cannot +e seriously challen&ed. <f course, the
ta'!ayer can 9uestion the ta' reassessment which is a conse9uence of the #isitD +ut such a
claim will +e e'amined +y another 4ud&e who will only consider the ta' issue. What is
!arado'ical is that such a 4ud&ment would not occur if the 3-A has +een allowed to make
#isits without +ein& authorized +y a 4ud&e to do so
14
.
14
;uran. #., French Tax Administration conduct not compati)le with the European Con"ention of Human Rights, International
Tax Re&ie', Ma5 2006
5
-he ma4or conse9uences of a!!lication of Article ( relatin& to ta'ation matters are
that6 the !roceedin&s must +e determined within a reasona+le time, the ri&ht to a court, ri&ht
to silence, le&al aid, non2herita+ility of criminal char&es.
1.1.1. !nreasona"le length of proceedings
<ne of the most im!ortant conse9uences is that, where Article ( a!!lies that the
!roceedin&s must +e determined within a reasona+le time. As one mi&ht e'!ect, there is no
fi'ed !eriod of time +eyond which !roceedin&s are re&arded as ha#in& suffered an
unreasona+le delay. ach case de!ends u!on its circumstances and, in !articular, on a re#iew
of three factors6 the com!le'ity of the case, the conduct of the a!!licant, and the conduct of
the authorities. In &eneral, !eriods of une'!lained inacti#ity on the !art of the &o#ernment are
likely to esta+lish unreasona+le delay.
1.1.#. $he right to a court
<ne of the fundamental ri&hts &uaranteed +y Article ( is the ri&ht to a court for the
determination of ci#il ri&hts and o+li&ations or a criminal char&e. -his ri&ht was at issue in the
case of ++ v. the ,etherlands
-/
where the a!!licant was assessed to additional ta' !lus a 1@@B
fiscal !enalty +ut was una+le to a!!ear in court +ecause of his failure to !ay the court fee )the
+ank instructed to make the !ayment did not do so within the time limit*. -he "t$%
concluded that Article ( a!!lied since the !enalty in#ol#ed the determination of a criminal
char&e, and that the a!!licant had +een denied a court. -his raises the issue where Article (
a!!lies to ta' !roceedin&s +ut the ta'!ayer is, for e'am!le, re9uired to !ay the ta' +efore he
can a!!eal.
1.1.%. Right to silence
Article ( does not e'!ressly contain a ri&ht to silence in criminal !roceedin&s.
$owe#er, the 5tras+our& or&ans ha#e concluded that a ri&ht to silence and a ri&ht not to
incriminate oneself are &enerally reco&nised as international standards which lie at the heart
of the notion of a fair !rocedure &uaranteed +y Article ( )e.&. Saunders v 0nited 1ingdom
-2
*.
5ince !roceedin&s arisin& out of ta'ation matters may in#ol#e the determination of a criminal
char&e, the ri&ht to silence may arise in connection with those !roceedin&s. -he ri&ht to
silence has +een raised in a few recent ta' cases, includin& $unke v. $rance
1G
and 'bas v the
,etherlands
1A
. In $unke the 3rench ta' authorities were condemned +ecause of the lack of a
15
&#&# "# The 'etherlands, Application 4o$ 21:(1,9:, #u)lication$ 19967II, no. *6
16
Saun.er/ & <nite. =in0.o- >199*? 2: E3RR :1:
17
9un"e, Miail+e an. %ro-ieux &. 9rance, E%3R *5+*+,--., Application 4o. 10626,6, 12**1,68 an. 1181,6(. 199: 1*
E3RR 298, ::2 an. :(8
18
A)a/ & t+e 4et+erlan./, Application 4o. 289:,9(
6
4udicial order to enter in !remises and domicile. -he le&al conditions were too wide and it was
im!ortant to achie#e !rior 4udicial authorization
1?
.
-he ri&ht to silence raises !otentially difficult issues for the administration of ta'es.
All ta' administration re9uires the su+mission of a &reat deal of information +y ta'!ayers.
Where, howe#er, a criminal char&e is in#ol#ed, the ri&ht to silence im!licit in Article ()1*
may a!!ly. "learly, a ta'!ayer cannot in#oke the ri&ht to silence and sim!ly refuse to su+mit
his ta' return on the &rounds that, if any entry in the return !ro#ed to +e inaccurate, he mi&ht
+e lia+le to a fiscal !enalty. -he 5tras+our& or&ans ha#e on se#eral occasions noted that the
administration of ta' in#ol#es the disclosure of information +y the ta'!ayer. <n the other
hand, a !oint may come where it +ecomes clear that a criminal char&e is contem!lated and the
ri&ht to silence is en&a&ed. -his is clearly so where it has +ecome a!!arent that the authorities
are contem!latin& a criminal !rosecution under the !ro#isions of the &eneral criminal law and
+efore the criminal courts. In !rinci!le, it must also +e the case when it +ecomes clear that the
re#enue authorities may +e seekin& su+stantial fiscal !enalties which would +e re&arded as
in#ol#in& a criminal char&e for "on#ention !ur!oses
,@
.
1.1.&. 'egal aid
<ne of the additional &uarantees for !ersons char&ed with a criminal offence is the
ri&ht Kto defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or# if he has
not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance# to be given it free when the interests of 3ustice
so re4uire8 )Article ( s.. ss.c*. If !roceedin&s arisin& out of ta'ation matters in#ol#e the
determination of a criminal char&e, then, in !rinci!le, le&al aid should +e a#aila+le )su+4ect,
always, to the a!!licant showin& that he has not sufficient means and that the interests of
4ustice so re9uire*
,1
.
1.1.(. )on*herita"ilit+ of criminal charges
%eference has already +een made to the cases of '(# )( and *( v. Swit!erland and
56# 76 and +86 v. Swit!erland
,,
+oth of which concerned fiscal !enalties im!osed on the
heirs of a deceased )with a ma'imum of 4@@B of the ta' e#aded* for ta' e#asion committed
+y the deceased. In +oth cases the "t$% decided that the fiscal !enalty in#ol#ed a criminal
char&e, and that the !rinci!le that criminal lia+ility was !ersonal to an indi#idual meant that
the !enalties could not +e im!osed on the heirs
,.
.
19
Grau Ruiz M.A., Decisions ( p.:
20
!a"er #., Taxation and Humans Rights Act ,--/, p.8 a&aila)le 2(.0(.2012 at
+ttp$,,'''.tax)ar.co-,.ocu-ent/,Taxation13u-an1Ri0+t/1Act1#+ilip1!a"er1@%.p.2
21
!a"er #., Taxation ( p.8
22
E0, R0 and &10 " $wit%erland, Application 'o *2-,-3-*
23
!a"er #., Taxation A p.8
7
1.#. Article 1 of the ,irst -rotocol to ECHR
-he !ur!ose of Article 1 of the 3irst Protocol to "$% is twofold. 3irst and foremost,
to de!ict what is K!ossession8 and secondly to consider the conditions of human ri&hts
!rotection under 3AP Article 1. As a side effect these illustrations may contri+ute to the
understandin& of other international instruments such as the Uni#ersal Leclaration of $uman
%i&hts Article 1G and the 1?(( "o#enant on "i#il and Political %i&hts Article ,(.
-ryin& to unfold the !ro#ision of 3AP Article 1, some elements are not at all
am+i&uous. -o the contrary, the !ro#ision is ruled out in many directions. "learly
7 the "$% is a Kli#in& instrument8, that
7 is a se!arate 7 +ut incom!lete 7 system of law
7 its wordin& has an Kautonomous meanin&8,
7 that the three !ro#isions of Article 1 of the 3irst Protocol are interrelated and,
therefore, su+4ect to the same criteria,
7 that K!ossessions8 is a dynamic conce!t that has a #ery +road meanin&,
7 which howe#er does not !rotect uncertain future claims a&ainst #iolations
,4
.
All ta'ation is a !rima facie interference with the ri&ht of en4oyment of !ossessions.
-o !ut sim!ly, if there were no ta', one would ha#e more !ossessions to en4oy. $owe#er, the
draftsmen of Article 1 of the 3irst Protocol did not intend to de!ri#e states of their ta'in&
!owers. -he second !ara&ra!h !reser#es an e'ce!tion for ta'ation.
In 9angeville
./
, on the Article I of the 3irst Protocol, the 3rench authorities did not
want to com!ensate dama&es when a com!any had !aid the Ealue Added -a' )EA-* in
accordance with the domestic le&islation, which was not com!ati+le with the "ommunity
rules. -he refund of an ille&al ta' unduly !aid is a !art of the !ro!erty ri&ht. -his credit has a
!atrimonial #alue. -he Protocol a!!lies to this asset. -herefore it would +e !ossi+le to ask for
the le&islatorJs !atrimonial res!onsi+ility
,(
.
As an e'ce!tion to a fundamental ri&ht, howe#er, all ta'ation must satisfy the
!rinci!les underlyin& the "on#ention6 it must +e im!osed accordin& to law, it must ser#e a
#alid !ur!ose in the !u+lic or &eneral interest, and the !ro#isions ado!ted must +e a
reasona+le and !ro!ortionate means to achie#e that end.
In a small num+er of cases the ar&ument has +een made that the ta' concerned
im!osed such an e'cessi#e +urden as to +e an interference with the ri&ht to en4oy one8s
24
B)erec+, #.T., CFrom Diplomatic 4 to Human Rights rotection5 The ossessions under the ,-52 European Human Rights
Con"ention, First Additional rotocol Article ,6. Journal o2 Dorl. Tra.e :, no. 1 >2009?$ (979*. p.*2.
25
S.A. ;an0e&ille &. 9rance, E%3R 1*772002, application nu-)er :**88,98. E%3R 20027III.
26
Grau Ruiz M.A., Decisions ( p.:
8
!ossessions. In Svenska )anagementgruppen '& v Sweden
.%
it was alle&ed that a 5wedish
!rofit2sharin& ta' amounted to e'!ro!riation. -he "n$% found, howe#er, that the !articular
ta' in issue did not affect the &uarantee of ownershi! or interfere with the ta'!ayer8s financial
!osition to such an e'tent that it could +e considered dis!ro!ortionate or an a+use of the ri&ht
of the 5tate to le#y ta'es.
A num+er of cases ha#e in#ol#ed challen&es to measures which !ro#ide for the
enforcement of ta'es. <nly two of these challen&es ha#e +een successful. In /emoine #.
3rance
,A
the "n$% held that the im!osition of a char&e on nine !ro!erties +elon&in& to the
ta'!ayers, and ha#in& a #alue in e'cess of 3r.1m., in order to &uarantee a !ayment of ta'es
sli&htly in e'cess of 3r.A@,@@@ was a +reach of Article 1H1. It a!!ears that the reason for the
decision was the lack of !ro!ortionality +etween the aim to +e achie#ed and the measure
ado!ted and the lack of ade9uate 4udicial su!er#ision o#er the !ower.
-he second case in which a ta'!ayer was successful under Article 1 of the 3irst
Protocol is $entrich #. 3rance
,?
. -his concerned the 3rench %e#enue8s former ri&ht to
e'ercise an o!tion of !re2em!tion o#er !ro!erty if the sale !rice sti!ulated +y the !arties was
re&arded as too low. -he "t$% held that this was an interference with the ri&ht of en4oyment
of !ossessions +ecause the e'ercise of the ri&ht of !re2em!tion was discretionary and the
!rocedural as!ects of the ri&ht were not fair6 the !re2em!tion o!erated ar+itrarily and
selecti#ely and was scarcely foreseea+le, and was not attended +y +asic !rocedural
safe&uards.
:oth entrich and 6emoine in#ol#e to an e'tent a +road discretionary !ower &i#en to
a re#enue authority, with inade9uate 4udicial su!er#ision. In +oth cases it a!!ears that this
a+sence of su!er#ision was a si&nificant factor in the decision that the measure could not +e
4ustified as an interference with the freedom of en4oyment of !ossessions
.@
.
%e&ardin& the !ro!erty ri&ht )Article 1 of the 3irst Protocol*, there are some clear lines
of 4uris!rudence. -he ri&ht to deduct EA- is a le&itimate e'!ectation to reco#er amounts !aid
in e'cess and a#oid the un4ust enrichment +y the ta' administration. In &ulves '&
:-
the
deduction !re#ails o#er formal conditions set for the functionin& of the EA- system. -here is
a &eneral interest and there is no a+ility to secure com!liance +y the su!!lier with EA-
re!ortin& o+li&ations. In &usiness Support ;entre<o, it was said that if the su!!lier does not
fulfill his o+li&ation, the ta'!ayer cannot deduct and must !ay EA- twice, which turns into an
27
S&en/"a Mana0e-ent0ruppen A! & S'e.en, Application 4o. 110:*,6
28
Le-oine &. 9rance, Application 4o. 2*22,9(
29
3entric+ &. 9rance, Application 4o 1:*1*,66
30
!a"er #., TaxationA p. :7
31
!ul&e/ A; &. !ul0aria, E%3R 227172009. application nu-)er :991,0:
9
e'cessi#e +urden. In )oon after not ha#in& declared certain amounts of money in the +order
to the "ustomsJ authorities, they were retained, the ta'!ayer was forced to !roof that their
ori&in was not illicit and an additional fine was im!osed. -his was a confiscatory measure
.,
.
1.%. Article & of the .eventh -rotocol to ECHR
-he article 4 of the 5e#enth Protocol contains non +is in idem !rinci!le. 3or e'am!le,
in the case 7uotsalainen
..
a Jlow ta'J !etrol was unduly used and a criminal 4ud&ment leaded
to a sanction throu&h a 9uick !rocess for a minimal fraud, +ut in addition an administrati#e
!rocedure ended with a fine of three times the ta' de+t for dri#in& without notifyin& it. It was
an identical +reach, with the same su+4ect, the same facts and at the same time. A 9uestion
could ha#e +een !osed if a !ossi+le discount amon& the fines had made thin&s #ary
.4
.
1.&. -rohi"ition of discrimination
Article 14 !ro#ides as follows6 =*he en3oyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in
this ;onvention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex# race#
colour# language# religion# political or other opinion# national or social origin# association
with a national minority# property# birth or other status.>
Article 14 is a non2free2standin& non2discrimination rule6 that is, the Article does not
!rohi+it discrimination as such, +ut only discrimination in the en4oyment of the ri&hts and
freedoms contained in the "on#ention. A com!laint must, therefore, !oint to the ri&ht or
freedom in res!ect of which discrimination is alle&ed. Article 14 alone cannot +e the +asis of a
com!laint where none of the other ri&hts or freedoms contained in the "on#ention are
en&a&ed. Liscrimination consists of the a!!lication of different treatment to !ersons who are
in an o+4ecti#ely similar situation. #en then, the state may 4ustify the difference in treatment
if it !ursues a le&itimate aim and is not dis!ro!ortionate. In the s!here of ta'ation 5tates en4oy
a wide mar&in of a!!reciation.
In the ta' conte't, Article 14 is most often raised in con4unction with Article 1 of the
3irst Protocol on the +asis that the ri&ht to en4oyment of !ossessions has +een infrin&ed +y ta'
rules which o!erate in an un4ustified and discriminatory way.
1.&.1. Cases /here discrimination /as not esta"lished
:efore considerin& cases where the a!!licant has succeeded in an ar&ument +ased
u!on Article 14, it is worth to focus on a num+er of cases where no discrimination was found.
32
Grau Ruiz M.A., Decisions(, p.11
33
Ruot/alainen &. 9inlan., E%3R 1*7*72009, application nu-)er 1:089,0:
34
Grau Ruiz M.A., Decisions (, p.1
10
In = v. Ireland
:/
the "n$% re4ected a claim on the +asis that differences in conditions
for ado!tion and ado!tion !rocedures #ary from one country to another which meant that it
was reasona+le for Ireland to a!!ly a different rate of ta' to domestic ado!tees.
In at least four cases a!!licants ha#e com!lained unsuccessfully of differences in ta'
treatment +etween em!loyed !ersons, self2em!loyed !ersons and em!loyers. 3or e'am!le, in
,ational $ederation of the Self"5mployed v 0nited 1ingdom
.(
the 3ederation com!lained
a+out "lass IE 1ational Insurance "ontri+utions that self2em!loyed !ersons recei#ed no
+enefits as a result of their contri+utions. -he "n$% held the com!laint inadmissi+le on the
&rounds that the differences in treatment were 4ustified. In a su+se9uent case, the com!laint
a+out 1ational Insurance "ontri+utions was on the &rounds that self2em!loyed !ersons could
not deduct their contri+utions. -he "n$% held the a!!lication inadmissi+le on the &rounds
that a self2em!loyed !erson was not in a com!ara+le !osition with an em!loyer.
Fenerally, differences in ta' rules +etween em!loyers, em!loyees and the self2
em!loyed are unlikely to +e re&arded as un4ustified and discriminatory.
1.&.#. Cases /here discrimination /as esta"lished
-urnin& to the cases in which the a!!licant has +een successful in a com!laint under
Article 14, most in#ol#ed discrimination on &rounds of se'6 most in#ol#ed discrimination
a&ainst men and at least one in#ol#ed discrimination a&ainst women.
Under the former Lutch rule, an unmarried and childless woman o#er 40 was not
re9uired to !ay child +enefit contri+utions, +ut a man in similar circumstances was re9uired to
!ay. In Ean 7aalte v the ,etherlands
.G
the "t$% concluded that this in#ol#ed un4ustified
discrimination a&ainst men. In two !arallel cases 7 ;rossland v 0nited 1ingdom
.A
and
$ielding v 0nited 1ingdom
.?
2 com!laint was made that the widow8s +erea#ement allowance
was only &i#en to a woman and not to a man whose deceased wife was the !rinci!al
+readwinner. -he "n$% held +oth cases to +e admissi+le and a friendly settlement was
a&reed in the "rossland case. -he le&islation has +een su+se9uently amended. )ac>regor v
0nited 1ingdom
4@
in#ol#ed discrimination a&ainst women. An inca!acitated s!ouse allowance
was &i#en only to a man with an inca!acitated wife and not to a woman with an inca!acitated
hus+and. A&ain the "n$% held the a!!lication admissi+le, a friendly settlement was a&reed,
and the le&islation has su+se9uently +een amended.
35
7 "# 8reland, Application 4o. (91:,82
36
'ational Federation of the $elf+Emplo9ed " :nited ;ingdom, Application 4o. 899(,88
37
Van Raalte & t+e 4et+erlan./, Application 4o. 200*0,92
38
Crossland " :nited ;ingdom, Application 4o. :*120,98
39
Fielding " :nited ;ingdom, Application 4o. :*90,98
40
!ac<regor " :nited ;ingdom Application 4o. :0(6,9*
11
-he discussion of discrimination on &rounds of se' is, !erha!s, an a!!ro!riate !oint to
consider a small num+er of cases where a challen&e has +een +rou&ht to !ro#isions of the ta'
system a!!lica+le to married cou!les on the &rounds that married cou!les were ta'ed on a
different +asis from unmarried cou!les in similar circumstances. In 6indsay v. 0nited
1ingdom
?-
com!laint was made of the former UK ta' system of a&&re&atin& certain of the
income of hus+ands and wi#es. -he "n$% held that the !ro#isions were well within the
mar&in of a!!reciation en4oyed +y a 5tate in ta' matters.
/ea#in& aside discrimination on &rounds of se', the first case that has +een successful
under Article 14 in a ta' conte't was the well2known case of 9arby v Sweden
4,
. Peter Lar+y
was resident in 3inland +ut worked in 5weden and was therefore su+4ect to 5wedish church
ta'. As a non2resident, howe#er, he was una+le to contract out of the ta' althou&h a resident in
the same circumstances would ha#e +een entitled to contract out. $e com!lained of a +reach
of Article 14 in con4unction with Article 1 of the 3irst Protocol. -he "t$% held that the
!rohi+ition on discrimination was a!!lica+le to ta'ation +y #irtue of the ri&ht to the
en4oyment of !ossessions. -he "ourt went on to hold that there was no 4ustification for this
distinction +etween residents and non2residents and that there had +een a #iolation. -he Lar+y
case is somewhat unusual. 1on2residents would not normally +e in an o+4ecti#ely com!ara+le
!osition to residents. <utside of discrimination on &rounds of se', ar&uments +ased on Article
14 are unlikely to succeed in ta'ation matters. #en assumin& that the a!!licant can !ersuade
the "ourt that he is in an o+4ecti#ely similar !osition to another !erson who is ta'ed
differently, the "ourt may still find that the difference in treatment is within the wide mar&in
of a!!reciation
4.
.
#. ,reedoms lin0ed in some cases /ith taxation
#.1. ,reedom of religion
Fermany is one of those remainin& countries that collect a church ta'6 in this case, the
:a#arian "hurch -a' e9ual to AB of an indi#idual8s income ta'. -o assist in the withholdin&
of ta' +y em!loyers, communes issued to ta'!ayers an identity card which either stated on e
of the si' reli&ious or&anizations which were entitled to recei#e the ta' or had an Knil8 entry
for reli&iuon if the ta'!ayer either did not +elon& to one of the si' con&re&ations, or had o!ted
out of the !ayment of the church ta'. In Wasmuth #. Fermany the a!!licant com!lained that a
nil entry on his identity card infrin&ed his ri&hts to freedom of reli&ion )includin& the ri&ht not
to manifest any reli&ion* and his ri&ht to a !ri#ate life as well. -hat it is clear from the case
41
0indsa9 " :nited ;ingdom, Application 'o# ,,2/-3/4
42
Dar)9 " $weden, Application 'o# ,,5/,3/5
43
!a"er #., TaxationA p. 6710
12
that !art of his o+4ection was intended to render more difficult the collection of church ta'
which he o+4ected to on the &rounds that it su+sidized certain reli&ions that were anthi!atetic
to homose'uality.
In !re#ious case law, the "t$% has held that any reference to reli&ion in a &eneral
identity card infrin&ed the freedom to manifest or not manifest a reli&ion. $owe#er, here the
"ourt has distin&uished the cases +y nothin& that the cards were issued for ta' !ur!oses and
were not for &eneral usa&e. -hey were normally only !roduced to an em!loyer on the
commencement of em!loyment and ser#ed the !ur!ose only to notify the em!loyer whether
the church ta' had to +e deducted in res!ect of one of those si' con&re&ations. <n this +asis ,
the "ourt held that the interference with the freedom of reli&ion was 4ustified and
!ro!ortionate. It also has re4ected on similar &rounds any challen&e +ased on the ri&ht to
!ri#acy. It seems dou+tful, howe#er, that any more &eneral collection of information a+out
reli&ious affiliations of ta'!ayers for ta' !ur!oses would +e !ermissi+le
44
.
#.#. ,reedom of expression
In summary of the case )ariapori v. $inland
40
it could +e said that =the freedom of
expression in 'rticle -@ includes the right to defame revenue officers>. In this case a ta'
e'!ert in a court said that the ta' ins!ector had intentionally made mistakes, and later did so
in a +ook. 5he was char&ed with a&&ra#ated defamation and !unished with a fine and
conditional im!risonment. -he "$% decided that re#enue officers in a democratic society
must +e e'!ected to tolerate criticism and acce!ted wider limits.
$owe#er, more recently "t$% clarified that that the defamation of re#enue officers
has its limits. In -affin "ontri+ua+les AssociMs #. 3rance the a!!licants were an indi#idual and
an association which !u+lished a monthly information +ulletin a+out the collection of ta'. In
,@@1 in contained an inter#iew with a -E !roducer who successfully challen&ed a ta'
in#esti&ation +y the 3rench re#enue. In that Article, it referred to a ta' ins!ector +y name and
alle&ed that she had wanted Kthe ta'!ayer8s skin at any !rice8, had +een totally irres!onsi+le,
and had committed not sim!ly errors +ut &ra#e irre&ularities. -he association, the !u+lisher
and the -E !roducer were char&ed under 1AA1 law for !u+lic defamation of a ci#il ser#ant.
-he 3rench "ourt im!osed fines of 1,0@@ U% and 1,,@@ U% which was u!held on a!!eal.
-he !u+lisher challen&ed this as infrin&ement of Article 1@ of "$%. "t$% noted that that
the freedom of e'!ression included the ri&ht to make statements which mi&ht wound, shock or
dis9uiet, +ut there was still an o+li&ation of 4ud&ment and +alance to +e e'ercised +y a
44
!a"er #., $ome recent tax decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, European Taxation, Jun. 2011, Vol. (1 I//ue *,
p. 2(:
45
Mariapori &. 9inlan., E%3R *78720 10, application nu-)er .==5,32=
13
!u+lisher when considerin& the accuracy of serious accusations a&ainst a ci#il ser#ant. -he
freedom of e'!ression also included duties and res!onsi+ilities2 &i#en the seriousness of ta'
accusations a&ainst the ta' ins!ector, neither the char&e nor the !enalty were dis!ro!ortionate.
5o this case is an e'am!le of the !u+lisher8s o+li&ation to e'ercise 4ud&ment when decidin& to
!u+lish e'treme criticisms of ta' official8s conduct.
4(
#.%. ,reedom of association
-he Article 11 includes the freedom of association, in the case Aordur 8lafsson
4G
a
mandatory !ayment of an industry char&e was le#ied. -he law im!osed it for the !romotion of
a &eneral interest, the -reasury collected it and transferred the re#enue to the 3ederation of
Industries. $owe#er, it was not desi&ned as a !ri#ate su+scri!tion. -he citizen did not +elon&
to that 3ederation and there was a lack of trans!arency on the use of the funds.%i&ht to
!ri#acy and !rofessional !ri#ile&e.
4A
46
!a"er #., $ome recent tax ( p. 2(
47
Vor.ur Bla2//on &. Icelan., E%3R 28772010, application nu-)er 201*1,0*
48
Grau Ruiz M.A., Decisions (9, p.1:
14
%. 1mpact of the ECtHR rulings
%.1. -u"lic revenues and expenditures ,rench example
-he "$% has had an im!act not only on the !u+lic re#enue side, +ut also on the
!u+lic e'!enditures. 5e#eral national 5tate Audit <ffices ha#e had to ada!t to the Article ( s.1
of the "on#ention. In !articular, this has ha!!ened in 3rance, :el&ium, Freece and Italy. -he
3rench e'!erience2 since 1A@G the 3rench financial 4urisdiction !roceedin&s had features
a&ainst the "$% case2law. In !rinci!le, it was com!ulsory and reser#ed a mar&inal role to
the !arties. -here was a lack of communication to the !arties of the su+missions made +y the
!u+lic !rosecutor or the Jra!!orteurJ 4ud&e. -he Lecree of the ,Gth of 5e!tem+er, ,@@, sol#ed
the issue of the !artici!ation in the deli+erations. After some chan&es to renew the 4ud&ment
!roceedin&s of !u+lic accounts, one could ask if it is already in conformity with the Article (
s.1 of the "on#ention. <n the one hand, an internal re&ulation of the 1(th of Cay, ,@@(,
issued +y the President of the 5tate Audit <ffice, im!osed the res!ect of e9uality of arms and
the ad#ersarial !rinci!le. <n the other hand, the Act of the ,Ath of <cto+er, ,@@A aimed at
com!ati+ility with the fair trial. Accordin&ly, it modified the role of the !u+lic !rosecutor of
the 5tate Audit <ffice and the %e&ional Audit <ffice. $e had the e'clusi#ity of the
!rosecutions. :ut there were still risks re&ardin& the Jordonnance de dechar&eJ and the
inter#ention of the Cinister of the -reasury in the e'ecution of the decisions
4?
.
Lue to the e'clusi#ity in the dis!ute !hase and the increase of the !rosecutor authority,
it is necessary to clarify hisHher inde!endence. -he role cannot +e e'actly assimilated to the
!rosecutors of the 4udiciary )with wider com!etence than a !u+lic accusator*. And re&ardin&
im!artiality, some as!ects deser#e careful attention6 the !artici!ation of the Jra!!orteurJ 4ud&e
in the financial 4urisdiction deli+eration, the com!osition of the J"our de disci!line +ud&etaire
et financierJ, and the +e&innin& of the !rocess
0@
.
%.#. .u"stantive la/ Example of Estonia
:ecause of the &rowin& im!ortance the uro!ean "ourt of $uman %i&hts8 decisions in
national le&al orders, -he 5u!reme "ourt decisions did not cause much contro#ersy in
stonia, demonstratin& the willin&ness of the !olitical actors to acce!t and im!lement the
decisions of the "t$%. All of the main !arties to the Eee+er cases )includin& the Cinister of
Nustice, the /e&al "hancellor, and the Prosecutor8s office* a&reed that in case of a #iolation of
the "$% esta+lished +y the uro!ean "ourt of $uman %i&hts, a !ossi+ility must e'ist to
o!en domestic !roceedin&s, at least in criminal cases. Coreo#er, the a+ility of the 5u!reme
49
Grau Ruiz M.A., Decisions (9, p.1(
50
I)i.e- p.1*
15
"ourt to reo!en the !roceedin&s itself without a statutory le&al +asis was not seriously
contested. -he reaction is 9uite different from the reaction of 5!anish commentators and
!oliticians after a su+stanti#ely similar decision +y the 5!anish "onstitutional "ourt of 1(
Lecem+er 1??1, where some authors accused the "onstitutional "ourt of o#erste!!in& its
!owers. Lurin& the !roceedin&s in the stonian 5u!reme "ourt, the Cinistry of Nustice also
indicated that Kin the nearest future the Cinistry of Nustice is &oin& to su+mit a +ill to the
Fo#ernment of the %e!u+lic which shall amend the !rocedural laws8 )!ara&ra!h ,, of the
Eee+er no. , case*. -he draft law was finally su+mitted to the Parliament in Lecem+er ,@@4,
foreseein& the !ossi+ility of reo!enin& domestic !roceedin&s in early ,@@4. Cost states now
allow for the reo!enin& of domestic !roceedin&s after a decision +y the uro!ean "ourt.,4
-he stonian cases discussed a+o#e show the !otential of the uro!ean "ourt of
$uman %i&hts to +ecome an o#erarchin& human ri&hts court. As more and more domestic
courts are directly +ound +y its decisions and +ecome e#en o+li&ed to reo!en their
!roceedin&s, the uro!ean "ourt of $uman %i&hts starts to look more and more like a court
of further a!!ellate instance. Whether those de#elo!ments are only !ositi#e or also contain
dan&ers is yet to +e determined. $owe#er, it is certain that the analysis of domestic
constitutional re#iew !rocedures necessarily o+tains a new dimension. 5uch an analysis can
no lon&er ne&lect the decisions of the uro!ean "ourt of $uman %i&hts +ut must #iew them
as an inte&ral !art of the system of !rotectin& domestic fundamental ri&hts
01
.
%.%. $axpa+ers compensation
Parado'ically the case2law shows how +i& dis!utes re&ardin& the 9uantum of the
lia+ility to ta' do fall outside article ( of the "on#ention, +ut some small !enalties may fall
inside its sco!e. -his has enormous conse9uences and affects mi'ed cases, which are 9uite
common. In facin& so many Jcriminal char&esJ, a distinction amon& them is made in
accordance with their differin& wei&hts )ta' surchar&es differ from the hard core of criminal
law, so one could ar&ue how far does the ri&ht to silence a!!lies in ta' matters, for instance*.
Another curious fact is that, currently the "t$% seems to acce!t retros!ecti#e
chan&es to su+stanti#e law, and is reluctant when they affect !rocedural ta' rules. $owe#er,
for the ta'!ayers the crucial issue is that of com!ensation. -he failure to &rant it mi&ht reduce
a!!lications to the "$% in the near future.
51
Annu/ Taa&i, C$upreme Court on Reopening of &udicial roceedings Following a &udgment of the European Court of Human
Rights# Decisions of > &anuar9 *224, case 'o# .+,+,.+2. and ,2 &anuar9 *224, case 'o# .+.+*+,+24,6, European Constitutional
0aw Re"iew, ,5 .,/4.*>, *225, p# .*.+.*>
16
Conclusions
-here is a clear trend6 the "ourtJs em!hasis on !rocedural &uarantees for defendants.
-he accusatorial ci#il law systems )differin& from the ad#ersarial An&lo25a'on model* are
sometimes criticized due to lack of im!artiality or trans!arency and the accumulation of
functions. -he im!lementation of the "on#ention often re9uires chan&es in the 4udicial
or&anization and o!eration. In this line, some constitutional courts make e'!ress re9uirements
to the 4udiciary.
When courts are o!en to enforce the "on#ention and the case2law, conse9uently there
are less a!!lications to the "t$%. <f si&nificant rele#ance are the &eneralized failures across
uro!e to ensure trial within a reasona+le time !eriod. $owe#er, now the len&th of the
!roceedin&s +efore the "$% also has +ecome worryin&. -his mi&ht +e connected with the
standard techni9ue of 4udicial !rudence in ri&hts ad4udication. Its effects #ary for the
indi#idual )as retros!ecti#e 4ud&e, if com!ensation is awarded, !ossi+le feed+ack loo!s may
ha!!en, +ecause !ositi#e decisions may attract new !etitioners* and for other 5tates )as
!ros!ecti#e lawmaker seekin& !atterns for reform*.
0,
.
In the +i&&est ta' case of ,@112 Oukos case he decision on the merits of the claim has
+een lon& awaited, the admissi+ility was issued on ,?
th
Nanuary and the !u+lic hearin& was
held on 4
th
Carch and the decision was !u+lished on ,@
th
5e!tem+er ,@11. -he 4ud&ment is
1(. !a&es loln& with two !artly dissentin& o!inions. -he "ourt has found %ussia to ha#e
infrin&ed the Oukos com!any8s ri&hts in certain res!ect. <n the other hand, the ma4or issues of
discriminatory a!!lication of ta' in#esti&ations and !olitically moti#ated actions were not
made out
0.
.
-he "$% adds another dimension to le&al ad#ice in contentious ta' cases. $owe#er,
it would +e an e'a&&eration to say that the "on#ention and the conce!t of res!ect for
"on#ention %i&hts !ro#ide a si&nificant new defence to ta'!ayers. -he most im!ortant
!ractical effect is likely to +e a lon& way +efore liti&ation, e.&. in the way in which the ta'
authorities will e'ercise their !owers of in#esti&ation, reco#ery and enforcement.
04
.
-he re#enue authorities need to +e aware that human ri&hts can im!act on their
acti#ities in a wide #ariety of ways. <n the other hand, ta' ad#isors should +e aware of
circumstances in which human ri&hts of ta' !ayers mi&ht ha#e +een +reached.
52
Grau Ruiz M.A., Decisions (9, p.17(
53
!a"er #., T+e Eu"o/ %a/e F ;eci/ion I//ue. on t+e Merit/, European Taxation, ;ece-)er 2011, p. ((7(8
54
Me+ta, 4i"., C:; Re"enue++)eware human rights6, International Tax Re&ie' 11. 10 >4o& 2000?$ :(7:8
17
'iterature
-. Annus -., KSupreme ;ourt on 7eopening of +udicial (roceedings $ollowing a +udgment of the
5uropean ;ourt of uman 7ights. 9ecisions of 2 +anuary .@@?# case ,o. :"-"-:"@: and -@ +anuary
.@@?# case ,o. :":"."-"@?-B, 5uropean ;onstitutional 6aw 7eview# -C :-DE:.2# .@@/
.. :aker P. Some recent tax decisions of the 5uropean ;ourt of uman 7ights# uro!ean -a'ation, Nun.
,@11, Eol. 01 Issue (
:. :aker P., *axation and uman rights, in6 FI-" %e#iew ,@@1, a#aila+le ,(.@0.,@1, at6
htt!6HHwww.ta'+ar.comHdocumentsH&itcPre#iewP#1Pn1.!df,
?. :aker P., *axation and umans 7ights 'ct -FFD, !.G a#aila+le ,0.@0.,@1, at
htt!6HHwww.ta'+ar.comHdocumentsH-a'ationP$umanP%i&htsPActPPhili!P:akerPQ".!df
/. :aker P., *he Gukos ;ase E 9ecision Issued on the )erits# uro!ean -a'ation, Lecem+er ,@11
2. Lurand P., $rench *ax 'dministration conduct not compatible with the 5uropean ;onvention of uman
7ights, International -a' %e#iew, Cay ,@@A
%. 3rommel 5., $air trial extended to tax penalties, International -a' %e#iew, Nun. 1??4
D. Frau %uiz C.A., 9ecisions of the 5;7 affecting domestic laws in the financial and tax field# /e' -
5cientia International Nournal, ,@11, Eol. ?
F. Cehta, 1ik., K01 7evenue""beware human rightsB, International -a' %e#iew )1o# ,@@@*
-@. <+erech, P.-., K$rom 9iplomatic E to uman 7ights (rotectionC *he (ossessions under the -F/@
5uropean uman 7ights ;onvention# $irst 'dditional (rotocol 'rticle -B. Nournal of World -rade 4.,
no. 1 ),@@?*
--. 5tatistics 1?0? to ,@11, uro!ean "ourt of $uman %i&hts, a#aila+le ,0.@0.,@1, at
htt!6HHwww.echr.coe.intH1%HrdonlyresH0A4@0A2G1"324A(.2?12
GG?".43L1A:,H@HAP%"UP1?0?,@11P1.!df
Cases
1. A+as # the 1etherlands, A!!lication 1o. ,G?4.H?0
,. AP, CP and -P #. 5witzerland, A!!lication 1o. 1??0AH?,
.. :endenoun #. 3rance, a!!lication num+er 1,04GHA(, re!orted 1??4. 1??4 1A $%% 04
4. :ul#es AL #. :ul&aria, "$% ,,212,@@?. a!!lication num+er .??1H@.
0. "rossland # United Kin&dom, A!!lication 1o. .(1,@H?G
(. Lar+y # 5weden, A!!lication 1o. 110A1HA0
G. /, %/ and N</ # 5witzerland, A!!lication 1o ,@?1?H?,
A. 3errazzini #. Italy, a!!lication num+er 44G0?H?A, re!orted in ,@@1 . I-/% ?1A
?. 3ieldin& # United Kin&dom, A!!lication 1o. .(?4@H?G
1@. 3unke, Ciailhe and "romieu' #. 3rance, "$% ,02,21??., A!!lication 1o. 1@A,AHA4, 1,((1HAG and
114G1HA0. 1??. 1( $%% ,?G, .., and .0G
11. $entrich #. 3rance, A!!lication 1o 1.(1(HAA
1,. N.N. #. -he 1etherlands, A!!lication 1o6 ,1.01H?., Pu+lication6 1??A2II, no. (A
1.. /emoine #. 3rance, A!!lication 1o. ,(,4,H?0
14. /indsay # United Kin&dom, A!!lication 1o. 11@A?HA4
10. CacFre&or # United Kin&dom A!!lication 1o. .@04AH?(
1(. Caria!ori #. 3inland, "$% (2G2,@ 1@, a!!lication num+er .GG01H@G
1G. 1ational 3ederation of the 5elf2m!loyed # United Kin&dom, A!!lication 1o. G??0HGG
1A. %uotsalainen #. 3inland, "$% 1(2(2,@@?, a!!lication num+er 1.@G?H@.
1?. 5.A. Lan&e#ille #. 3rance, "$% 1(242,@@,, a!!lication num+er .((GGH?G. "$% ,@@,2III.
,@. 5aunders # United Kin&dom )1??(* ,. $%% .1.
,1. 5#enska Cana&ement&ru!!en A: # 5weden, A!!lication 1o. 11@.(HA4
,,. Ean %aalte # the 1etherlands, A!!lication 1o. ,@@(@H?,
,.. Eordur <lafsson #. Iceland, "$% ,G242,@1@, a!!lication num+er ,@1(1H@(
,4. R #. Ireland, A!!lication 1o. 0?1.HG,
18