CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 31 mars 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s97B7A20 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s4DE91ACB { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:21.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt } .s45EC7D31 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE27D9C81 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s812A4BBF { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; font-size:14pt } .s4EDC3409 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt } .s5EC407A5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3338BAA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; font-size:10pt } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDFC5B1C5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sD85D3081 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .s297AF863 { width:199.81pt; display:inline-block } .sAE540E25 { width:21.87pt; display:inline-block } .s7DF13505 { width:188.79pt; display:inline-block } .sFDE7661F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .s12686D70 { height:44.25pt } .s41E9DBF5 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .s24AC208E { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF004B676 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sC3AB69A { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB30C44B0 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2342A031 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s546C9D04 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s40B7A780 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s4F2EDFF { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 803/02 by INTERSPLAV against Ukraine The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 31   March 2005 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni ,   Ms   D. Jočienė, judges , and Mr S. Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 December 2001, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant company, the “Intersplav” (hereinafter “the applicant”), is a joint venture enterprise, located in the town of Sverdlovsk in the Lugansk Region, Ukraine. It was represented before the Court by Mr. Aleksandr Syomkin. The respondent Government were represented by their Agents - Mrs V. Lutkovska and Mrs   Z. Bortnovska. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant manufactures goods using recycled scrap metal purchased in Ukraine, bearing a 20 % VAT rate. The major part of the applicant's production is exported from Ukraine at a zero VAT rate. The applicant is thereby entitled to a refund of the VAT due on the price of the scrap metal. Under the Law on Value-Added Tax (see the Domestic Law part below) such a refund should be made within a one-month period following the applicant's submission of the relevant calculations to the local tax administration. If the refund is delayed, compensation is payable. Both payments (the refund and compensation) are made by the State Treasury upon the submissions of the relevant tax authority. Since April 1998 the VAT refund to the applicant has been systematically delayed due to the failure of the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration to confirm the amounts involved. For the same reason, the applicant could not receive compensation for the delayed VAT refund (see the annexed table of over 140 court decisions). Since 1998, the applicant has complained to the Lugansk Regional Tax Administration and the State Tax Administration about the failure of the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration to issue timely certificates for the VAT refunds. However, these authorities found no illegalities in the actions of the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration, whilst recognising the existence of the State's debts to the applicant. The applicant also complained to the Sverdlovsk Prosecutor and the General Prosecutor's Office, without result. In its letter of 22 October 2002, the applicant claimed that further obstacles have arisen in running its business, including new discriminatory legislation, transport controls by the police, and judicial proceedings against its employees for defamation instituted by the Tax Administration. Proceedings before the domestic courts Since 1998 the applicant has instituted a number of proceedings, more than 140 so far, in the Lugansk Commercial Court against the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration and the State Treasury Department in order to receive compensation for the delayed refunding of the VAT. In the proceedings during 1999-2000, the applicant requested the court to oblige the Tax Administration to confirm the amounts of compensation due to the applicant. The court found for the applicant and ordered the tax administration to issue the requested confirmation for the amounts claimed. In the proceedings during 2001-2003, the applicant changed the subject of its claim and requested the courts to award it the amounts of the VAT refund and compensation directly. The Tax Administration and Treasury both opposed the claims: the former on an alleged lack of competence in VAT refunding, the latter on the impossibility to refund any VAT without prior confirmation of such an amount by the Tax Administration. The court found for the applicant and awarded the claimed amounts in its decisions between 2001 and 2004. It confirmed the applicant's right to compensation for the various delayed VAT refunds. The court decisions given between 1999 and 2002 were executed within periods ranging from four days to two years and eight months. The oldest decision that remained unenforced in February 2004, according to the applicant, was given on 18   March   2003. In its further correspondence, the applicant maintained that the Tax Authorities claimed that the court decisions given in its favour should not be directly enforceable, but would require the prior confirmation of the awarded amounts by the Tax Administration. On 17 March 2004 the applicant lodged a claim with the Lugansk Commercial Court against the Lugansk Regional Department of the State Treasury and the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration for their refusal to enforce the judgments rendered by the said court in the period between March 2003 and February 2004 (see the annex) and for a proposal to convert the amounts awarded by the above judgments into loan bonds with a five-year term. On 24 May 2004 the court found for the applicant and ordered the defendants to enforce the impugned judgments. The applicant maintained that, as of 18 June 2004, the amount of the State debt to the company confirmed by court decisions was UAH 26,363,200 (3,820,753.62 euros). B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The collection and refund of value-added tax (VAT) is regulated by the Law on Value-Added Tax. Article 3 of the law provides that both the sale of goods in Ukraine and the export of goods from Ukraine are subject to taxation. Under Article 6 of the law, the former is taxed at a 20 % rate, whereas the latter is taxed at 0 %. The procedure to establish the amount of VAT due or to be refunded is regulated by Articles 7 and 8, which provide as relevant: “7.7. The procedure to establish the amount of tax to be paid into the budget or to be used as compensation from the budget, and the terms of settlements within the budget 7.7.1. The amount of tax to be paid into the budget or refunded from the budget shall be determined as the difference between the total amount of tax obligations, which commence with any sale of goods (works, services) within the reporting period, and the amount of tax to be credited during the reporting period. Payment of the tax shall be made not later than the twentieth day of the month that follows the reporting period. 7.7.2. The tax payer shall submit a tax declaration to the local body of State tax services ... 7.7.3. Where ... the amount determined by subparagraph 7.7.1 of this Article is negative, it shall be refunded to the tax payer from the State budget of Ukraine within a month following the reporting period. ... Amounts that are not so refunded to the tax payer ... shall be considered a budget debt. Interest at 120 % of the basic rate of the National Bank of Ukraine shall be charged on that debt from the moment it arises and for the whole period of its validity, the repayment date inclusive. The tax payer is entitled at any moment after commencement of the budget   debt to apply to a court with   an action to collect the budget funds and establish the liability of the officials responsible for the untimely refund of   overpaid taxes.   ... 7.7.5. Amounts of value-added tax are included in the State budget and shall first be used for budget refunds of value-added tax according to this Law. ... Where the amount of budget receipts obtained from the payment of value-added tax ... does not cover the amount subject to refunding ..., funds from other [State budget] resources ... shall be used for such compensation. ... 8.1. A tax payer that performs export operations ... and files calculations for export compensation ... may receive such compensation within 30 calendar days from the date of submitting such calculations. ... 8.6. Export compensation shall be provided within 30 calendar days, following the day of the filing of export compensation calculations. In case the tax payer fails to submit the calculation of export compensation within the established terms, export compensation shall not be provided and the amounts of such compensation shall be taken into account when calculating the tax payer's future tax obligations ... Calculations of export budgetary compensation shall be submitted together with the declarations for the corresponding reporting period.” Procedure for the Refund of Value Added Tax, adopted by the joint decree of the State Tax Administration of Ukraine and the Main Department of the State Treasury of Ukraine No. 209/72 on 2 July 1997 According to the Procedure, the VAT refund is made by the State Treasury of Ukraine on the basis of a confirmation by the tax authroties or a court decision. The VAT refund shall be made within five days after the tax authority have submitted the confirmation of the amount claimed. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of numerous court decisions that confirmed its entitlement to State funds (VAT refunds and compensation for delays) and invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. It further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the State's practice of groundlessly refusing to confirm the applicant's entitlement to VAT refunds constituted a further interference with the peaceful enjoyment of its property, and that such interference was disproportionate and caused significant losses to its business. THE LAW I.     THE GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 1.     The Government presented a preliminary objection concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Government noted that the execution of judgments in the applicant's favour is conducted by the State Bailiffs' Service as regards the collection of court fees and expenses and by the State Treasury as regards the collections of VAT refunds and default interest. The Government maintained that the applicant never challenged the alleged inactivity of the State Bailiffs' Service or the State Treasury before the courts. The Government considered that the fact that the Treasury was a co-defendant in the judicial proceedings did not prevent the applicant from challenging the alleged inactivity of the Treasury at the enforcement stage of the judgments. The Government further maintained that Ukrainian legislation provided a possibility to apply to the court at any moment to recover budget debts. The applicant used this remedy and it was effective. The applicant maintained that the rule of non-exhaustion was not applicable to its case, since the applicant had found itself in the situation where numerous, consecutive refusals by the tax administration to confirm the amount of the VAT refund were found to be unlawful by the courts. Nevertheless, this practice persisted despite its obvious unlawfulness. The applicant refers to this Court's case-law that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies is “inapplicable where an administrative practice consisting of a repetition of acts incompatible with the Convention and official tolerance by the State authorities has been shown to exist, and is of such a nature as to make proceedings futile or ineffective” (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey , judgment of 16   September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, p. 1207, § 67). The Court notes that, regarding debt recovery, the applicant did have a remedy in every, albeit numerous, instance to seek and obtain the amounts due to it from the State Budget by lodging applications with the domestic courts. At the same time, the Court observes that the court decisions given in the applicant's favour did not prevent the tax administration from continuing its practice of systematically failing to confirm the State debts to the applicant, although this failure was held to be ill-founded by the domestic courts on numerous occasions. The Court further notes that, in addition to the judicial proceedings which the applicant had to initiate, it was required to take other steps in an attempt to remedy the situation, including complaints to other State institutions. In this situation, the Court agrees with the applicant that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies is inapplicable in the instant case, since the delayed refunding of VAT to the applicant can be described as an administrative practice consisting of a repetition of acts, whose compatibility with the Convention requires further examination by the Court. The Court therefore rejects this objection of the Government. II.     THE MERITS OF THE APPLICANT'S CLAIMS 2.     The applicant complained that, due to the non-execution of judgments in its favour, its right to a fair hearing was violated. It invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which provides insofar as relevant: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” The Government maintained that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not apply in the present case, since the judgments at issue did not concern any “civil rights and obligations” of the applicant company and belonged to the sphere of public law (tax matters). The applicant stated that the proceedings in question did concern its pecuniary interests and recalled the autonomous concept of “civil rights and obligations” given in the Court's case-law. The applicant maintained that the disputed relations had features of both public and private law, and that the latter prevailed. Therefore, the applicant maintained that the proceedings in question fell within the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Court recalls its case-law according to which tax disputes fall outside the scope of civil rights and obligations, despite the pecuniary effects which they necessarily produce for the taxpayer (see Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98, §§ 29 ‑ 31, 12 July 2001). Accordingly, Article   6   §   1 does not apply in the instant case. It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4. 3.     The applicant complained that the State had interfered with the peaceful enjoyment of its property, and that such interference was disproportionate and caused significant losses to its business. It invokes Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which provides as relevant: “Every ... legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.” The Government agreed that the judgments given in favour of the applicant constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Government further maintained that the judgments given in favour of the applicant were enforced without excessive delay and that the length of enforcement could be explained by the need to balance different budget expenditures, as well as the substantial amounts to be refunded to the applicant company. The Government further submitted that the situation in the instant case did not constitute an individual and excessive burden for the applicant, since only a part of the VAT refund was delayed and it was gradually paid to the applicant. The Court notes that, in the instant case, the delays in the majority of the enforcement proceedings were not excessive (see the annexed table) and, in any event, the applicant had, and used, the remedy available under domestic law for VAT refund proceedings to claim compensation for any delay in the enforcement of the judgments in question. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant's complaint about the length of the various enforcement proceedings in the present case should be rejected either for lack of victim status, in so far as the applicant was awarded compensation for the delays, or for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, where the applicant did not avail itself of the opportunity to claim compensation before the national courts. The Court concludes that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded as a whole and must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. 4.     The applicant further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 that the State's practice of groundlessly refusing to confirm the debts due to it, and the judicial proceedings which it then had to initiate systematically to enforce the VAT refunds, constituted an administrative practice of an unjustified interference with its property rights. i.     Applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 The Government maintained that the applicant's entitlement to VAT refunds can only be considered a “possession” under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 after confirmation of the amounts by court decisions. If the tax authorities dispute the entitlement of the applicant to the claimed VAT refund, it is only by virtue of a court decision that the applicant acquires “possessions” or “legitimate expectations” to receive them. The applicant maintained that the basis for the VAT refund under the law was the information provided by the applicant itself in its tax declarations. The court decisions given in its favour in the present case showed that its right to the VAT refunds was violated prior to its application to the courts, thus demonstrating that the right existed prior to those decisions. Moreover, under the law, the State could only use funds received from VAT payments for other purposes after all VAT refunds had been made. Until then, therefore, the link between the VAT and the taxpayer remained. It concluded that the right to VAT refunds, and compensation for delays in their payment, constituted “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Court points out that the concept of “possessions” in the first part of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has an autonomous meaning which is independent from the formal classification in domestic law (see Beyeler v.   Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 100, ECHR 2000-I). The issue that needs to be examined is whether the circumstances of the case, considered as a whole, conferred on the applicant an entitlement to a substantive interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. In this connection, the Court notes that in the instant case the remaining dispute does not concern the particular amount of a VAT refund or of compensation for the delay, but the applicant's general entitlement under the law to VAT refunds and compensation. The Court observes that, having met the criteria and requirements established by the domestic legislation, the applicant could reasonably expect the refund of the VAT it had paid in the course of its business activities, as well as compensation for any delay. Even though a particular claim for a VAT refund may be subject to checks and objections from the competent State authorities, the relevant provisions of the Law on Value-Added Tax do not require the prior judicial review of a claim to validate a company's eligibility for a refund. Finally, from the case-file it appears that the tax authorities did not dispute the amounts to be paid to the applicant, but simply refused to confirm them without any apparent reason, relying erroneously on a lack of competence in refunding matters. While the Court does not find it necessary to determine the precise content and scope of the legal interest in question, it is nevertheless satisfied that the factors outlined above show that the applicant had a proprietary interest recognised by Ukrainian law, and protected by Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. Consequently, this complaint cannot be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. ii.     Admissibility of the complaint The Government maintained that the tax authorities' actions in the present case were based on a disproportion between the amounts paid by the applicant in taxes and the amounts of VAT refund which it claimed. This created a suspicion that the applicant was using fictitious companies for its scrap metal supplies. According to the Government such fictitious enterprises were indeed discovered by the authorities. The applicant maintained that it had paid its taxes lawfully and these payments were checked on numerous occasions by the State authorities. It pointed out that it was not responsible for other companies from whom it bought metal, the price of which was inclusive of VAT. The obligation to pay that VAT was on the latter companies not the applicant. The applicant underlined that it had neither the competence, nor the possibility to control other businesses, and the situation referred to by the Government demonstrated the unsatisfactory workings of the tax authorities, for which the applicant should not be held liable. The Court considers, in the light of the parties' submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes therefore that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares admissible, without prejudging the merits, the applicant's complaint concerning the practice of an allegedly unjustified State interference with the VAT refunds owed to it; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   S. Naismith   J.-P. Costa   Deputy Registrar   President   ANNEX Application No. 803/02   List of the domestic court cases referred to by the applicant.   Proceedings in the commercial courts against the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration to oblige the latter to confirm the the amounts of compensation for delayed VAT refunds (under the procedure that was in force before 29 June 2001)   Case No. Period of VAT refund [1]   Decision of the Lugansk Commercial Court (final from the date of rendering) Extraordinary appeals, if any Sum to be confirmed according to the judgment + judicial costs (UAH) [2] Date of enforcement [3] Period of enforcement Chairman of the Lugansk Commercial Court Highest Commercial Court 3/139 Oct 1998* 18 May 1999 9 Sep 1999 31 Jan 2000 46,719.29 + 85.00 Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 (4/451) [4] - 3/128 Sep 1998* 18 May 1999 9 Sep 1999 31 Jan 2000 178,302.67 + 85.00 Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 (4/452) - 3/167 Jan, Apr, May 1998* 1 June 1999 9 Sept 1999 28 Jan 2000 21,166.56 + 85.00 Enforced by the Bailiffs' Service on 1   Feb 2002 2 years and 8 months 3/166 Jul, Aug 1998* 1 Jun 1999 9 Sep 1999 31 Jan 2000 23,914.29 + 85.00 Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 (4/449) - 3/315 Dec 1998* 21 Oct 1999 20 Dec 1999   89,268.59 + 85.00 Enforced by the Bailiffs' Service on 1   Feb 2002 Over 2 years and 3 months 3/314 Nov 1998* 21 Oct 1999 20 Dec 1999   2,117.58 + 85.00 Enforced by the Bailiffs' Service on 25   Jan 2002 Over 2 years and 3 months 3/313 Jan 1999* 21 Oct 1999 20 Dec 1999   58,961.41 + 85.00 Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 (4/46) - 3/344 Feb 1999* 25 Jan 2000     38,793.16 + 85.00 Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 (3/42) - 3/343 Dec 1998* 25 Jan 2000     3,758.47 + 85.00 Enforced by the Bailiffs' Service on 1   Feb 2002 Over 2 years 3/47 May 1999* 9 Mar 2000     65,914.00 + 85.00 Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 (3/43) - 3/46 Mar 1999* 9 Mar 2000     131,142.22 + 85.00 Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 June 2002 (4/47) - 3/45 Apr 1999* 9 Mar 2000     45,699.08 + 85.00 Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 (6/41) - 3/44 Feb 1999* 9 Mar 2000     2,566.23 + 85.00 Recalled by the applicant on 18   March 2002 (see judgment 3/42 of 19 Mar 2002) - 3/233 Sep 1999* 12 Sep 2000 23 Oct 2000   568,241.45 + 85.00 Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 (3/45) - 3/232 Oct 1999* 12 Sep 2000 23 Oct 2000   582,928.28 + 85.00 Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 (4/42) - 3/231 Nov 1999* 12 Sep 2000 23 Oct 2000   262,344.90 + 85.00 Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 (3/44) - 3/229 Dec 1999* 12 Sep 2000 23 Oct 2000   273,493.72 + 85.00 Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 (4/43) - 3/228 Jan 1999* 12 Sep 2000 23 Oct 2000   158,774.18 + 85.00 Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 (6/43) - 6/344 Feb 2000* 24 Oct 2000 20 Nov 2000   175,854.49 + 85.00 Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 (6/42) -   Proceedings in the commercial courts against the Sverdlovsk Town Tax State Administration to receive VAT refunds and/or compensation for delayed VAT refunds (under the procedure that came into force after 29 June 2001)   Case No. Period of VAT refund [5] Decision of the Lugansk Commercial Court (final in 10 days, if not appealed) Decision of the Donetsk Appellate Commercial Court (final from the date of rendering) Decision of the Highest Commercial Court (cassation) Sum awarded (UAH) Date of enforcement Period of enforcement 3/159 Jul 2000* 21 Jun 2001     18,468.23 + 184.68 Not presented to the Treasury   3/157 May 2000* 21 Jun 2001 10 Oct 2001   19,060.72+ 190.61 Not presented to the Treasury   3/266 Apr 2001 18 Sep 2001 13 Dec 2001   3869689.41 (3376777.83) + 1700 10 Jan 2002 27 days 3/265 May 2001 18 Sep 2001 13 Dec 2001   5,208,700.09 + 1700 10 Jan 2002 27 days 3/264 Feb 2001 18 Sep 2001 13 Dec 2001   553,498.63 + 1,611.05 Not presented to the Treasury   4/449 Aug 1998* 19 Oct 2001 8 Jan 2002   10,483.76 5 Feb 2002 27 days 4/450 Jul 1998* 19 Oct 2001 6 Feb 2002   13,430.53     4/451 Oct 1998* 19 Oct 2001 6 Feb 2002   49,719.29 27 Feb 2002 21 days 4/452 Sep 1998* 19 Oct 2001 8 Jan 2002   178,302.67 5 Dec 2002 10 months and 27 days 6/442 May 2000* 8 Nov 2001 18 Dec 2001   8,6761.19 + 936.61 28 Jan 2002 1 month and 10 days 6/443 Apr 2000* 8 Nov 2001 18 Dec 2001   92,252.55 + 991.53 28 Jan 2002 1 month and 10 days 6/444 Mar 2000* 8 Nov 2001 18 Dec 2001   140,835.35 + 1,477.35 28 Jan 2002 1 month and 10 days 6/445 Sep 2000* 8 Nov 2001 18 Dec 2001   182,500.48 + 1,769.00 28 Jan 2002 1 month and 10 days 6/446 Jul 2000* 8 Nov 2001 18 Dec 2001   49,819.15 + 567.19 28 Jan 2002 1 month and 10 days 6/447 Aug 2000* 8 Nov 2001 18 Dec 2001   208,944.86 + 1,769.00 28 Jan 2002 1 month and 10 days 6/448 Oct 2000* 8 Nov 2001 18 Dec 2001   194,621.94+ 1,769.00 28 Jan 2002 1 month and 10 days 3/421 Oct 2000* 15 Nov 2001 18 Dec 2001   28,785.02+ 1,769.00 21 Jan 2002 1 month and 3 days 3/420 Nov 2000* 15 Nov 2001 18 Dec 2001   274,526.87+ 1,769.00 21 Jan 2002 1 month and 3 days 3/408 Feb 2001* 15 Nov 2001 18 Dec 2001   107,836.83 + 1,147.37 21 Jan 2002 1 month and 3 days 3/423 Dec 2001 15 Nov 2001 18 Dec 2001   287,435.57 + 1,769.00 21 Jan 2002 1 month and 3 days 3/422 Aug 2001 (*) 29 Nov 2001 21 Jan 2002 22 Mar 2002 4,272,053.38 + 54,775.92 + 1700.00 5 Feb 2002 14 days 3/383 Apr 2001(*) 29 Nov 2001 21 Jan 2002 22 Mar 2002 1,139,799.00 + 32039.28*+ 1700.00 5 Feb 2002 14 days 3/382 Jul 2001 (*) 29 Nov 2001 21 Jan 2002 22 Mar 2002 4,390,762.64 + 123,422.53+ 1700.00 5 Feb 2002 14 days 3/418 May 2001 (*) 29 Nov 2001 21 Jan 2002 22 Mar 2002 1,487,680.00 + 19074.91+ 1700.00 5 Feb 2002 14 days 3/522 Jun 2001* 13 Dec 2001 27 Feb 2002 18 Apr 2002 71,095.68 18 Mar 2002 21 days 6/538 Sep 2001 (*) 8 Jan 2002 20 Feb 2002 18 Apr 2002 993,465.11 + 14,207.91+ 1,769.00 11 Mar 2002 21 days 3/521 Mar 2001* 8 Jan 2002 20 Feb 2002 18 Apr 2002 113,294.45 + 1201.94 11 Mar 2002 21 days 6/539 Jun 2001 (*) 8 Jan 2002 20 Feb 2002 23 Apr 2002 1,025.206.00 + 14,156.26 + 1761.21 12 Mar 2002 22 days 6/11 Jul 2001 (*) 24 Jan 2002 19 Mar 2002 10 May 2002 1,132,792.00 + 15,362.52+ 1,769.00 21 Feb 2002 Before the decision became final 6/12 Oct 2001 (*) 24 Jan 2002 19 Mar 2002 20 Apr 2002 2,295,661.86 + 32076.37+ 1,769.00 21 Feb 2002 Before the decision became final 6/15 Jan 2001* 29 Jan 2002 13 Mar 2002 3 Jun 2002 207.659.64 + 1766.93 15 Apr 2002 1 month and 2 days 4/15 Feb 2001 31 Jan 2002 13 Mar 2002 3 Jun 2002 33,427.00 + 386.71 1 Aug 2002 4 months and 17 days 6/31 Nov 2001 (*) 14 Feb 2002 10 Apr 2002 18 Jul 2002 2,182,930.54 + 22,427.37+ 1,769.00 16 May 2002 1 month and 6 days 6/41 Apr 1999* 28 Feb 2002 10 Apr 2002 10 Jun 2002 45,699.08 + 528.99 29 Apr 2002 9 days 6/42 Feb 2000* 28 Feb 2002 10 Apr 2002 10 Jun 2002 175,854.49+ 1,769.00 11 May 2002 1 month and 1 day 6/43 Jan 2000* 28 Feb 2002 10 Apr 2002 10 Jun 2002 158,774.18 + 1656.74 11 May 2002 1 month and 1 day 4/46 Jan 1999* 5 Mar 2002 8 Apr 2002 6 Jun 2002 58,961.41 + 658.61 24 Apr 2002 16 days 4/42 Oct 1999* 6 Mar 2002 3 Jun 2002 18 Jul 2002 574,397.77 + 1768.31 19 Apr 2002 Before the decision became final 4/43 Dec 1999* 6 Mar 2002 3 Jun 2002 18 Jul 2002 261,389.91 + 1766.24 19 Apr 2002 Before the decision became final 4/47 Mar 1999* 6 Mar 2002 8 Apr 2002 17 Jun 2002 130,212.47 + 1370.43 7 May 2002 29 days 4/51 May 2001* 19 Mar 2002 21 May 2002 18 Jul 2002 477,241.48+ 1,769.00 7 May 2002 Before the decision became final 3/45 Sept 1999* 19 Mar 2002 27 May 2002 3 Jun 2002 568,241.45+ 1,769.00 7 May 2002 Before the decision became final 3/43 May 1999* 19 Mar 2002 27 May 2002 3 Jun 2002 65,914.00 + 728.14 24 April 2002 Before the decision became final 3/42 Feb 1999* 19 Mar 2002 27 May 2002 3 Jun 2002 38,793.16 + 452.66 24 Apr 2002 Before the decision became final 4/57 Dec 2001 (*) 21 Mar 2002 21 May 2002 22 Jul 2002 1,774,431.37 + 19,904.24+ 1,769.00 7 May 2002 Before the decision became final 4/49 Apr 2001* 21 Mar 2002 21 May 2002 22 Jul 2002 424,745.18+ 1,769.00 7 May 2002 Before the decision became final 6/69 Sep 2001 (*) 22 Mar 2002 21 May 2002 22 Jul 2002 139,224.20 + 1,087.09 + 1465.39 7 May 2002 Before the decision became final 3/36 Aug 2001 (*) 4 Apr 2002 22 May 2002 11 Jul 2002 746,610.00 + 9818.43 + 1761,14 7 Jun 2002 15 days 3/44 Nov 1999* 11 Apr 2002 3 Jun 2002 22 Jul 2002 257,654.06 + 1737,37 7 Jun 2002 4 days 6/114 Oct 2001 23 Apr 2002 4 Jul 2002 1 Oct 2002 1,084,459.00+ 1,769.00 1 Aug 2002 26 days 6/113 Jan 2002 23 Apr 2002 4 Jul 2002 16 Sep 2002 1,062,637.00+ 1,769.00 1 Aug 2002 26 days 4/113 Jan 2002 (*) 23 Apr 2002 4 Jul 2002 1 Oct 2002 1,466,036.00 + 16,622.40+ 1,769.00 1 Aug 2002 26 days 4/141 Nov 2001 10 May 2002 2 Jul 2002 22 Aug 2002 583,930.00+ 1818.00 10 Jul 2002 8 days 4/140 Dec 2001 10 May 2002 2 Jul 2002 22 Aug 2002 871,950.00+ 1818.00 9 Jul 2002 7 days 4/174 Feb 2002 (*) 23 May 2002 2 Jul 2002 4 Sep 2002 1,481,255.00 + 16,070.60+ 1818.00 Not presented to the Treasury   4/177 Jul 2001* 28 May 2002 17 Jul 2002 17 Oct 2002 202,033.58+ 1818.00 1 Aug 2002 13 days 4/178 Sept 2001* 28 May 2002 17 Jul 2002 17 Oct 2002 33,004.81 + 613.07 1 Aug 2002 13 days 4/179 Jun 2001* 28 May 2002 17 Jul 2002 12 Sep 2002 26,818.36 + 520.27 1 Aug 2002 13 days 4/180 Oct 2001* 28 May 2002 17 Jul 2002 12 Sep 2002 38,550.20 + 696.25 1 Aug 2002 13 days 3/220 Mar 2002 (*) 11 Jun 2002 6 Aug 2002 26 Sep 2002 2,298,499.00 + 12,846.41+ 1818.00 3 Sep 2002 27 days 3/219 Aug 2001* 20 Jun 2002 17 Sep 2002 9 Dec 2002 189,439.57+ 1818.00 4 Apr 2003 6 months and 10 days 3/218 May 2001* 25 Jun 2002 9 Oct 2002 15 Jan 2003 58,922.08 + 707.22 30 Oct 2002 21 days 6/189 Feb 2002 (*) 9 Jul 2002 9 Oct 2002 18 Nov 2002 484,975.00 + 7,653.30 + 1812.54 30 Oct 2002 8 days 6/233 Mar 2002 (*) 23 Jul 2002 30 Sep 2002 25 Nov 2002 1,395,270.00 + 22,018.51+ 1818.00 Enforcement since 14 Oct 2002   6/276 Apr 2002 (*) 29 Jul 2002 9 Oct 2002 18 Nov 2002 971,785.00 + 7,987.27+ 1818.00 4 Mar 2003 4 months and 10 days 4/222 Apr 2002 (*) 3 Sep 2002 31 Oct 2002 28 Dec 2002 1,406,492.00 + 17571.52 + 2668.00 3 Dec 2002 8 days 3/283 May 2002 (*) 17 Sep 2002 17 Dec 2002 28 Feb 2003 2,308,783.00 + 13,966.56+ 1818.00 4 Mar 2003 2 months and 15 days 6/309 Feb 2002* 23 Sep 2002 6 Nov 2002 15 Jan 2003 24,243.46 + 360.46 5 Dec 2002 29 days 6/311 Jun 2002 (*) 23 Sep 2002 6 Nov 2002 28 Dec 2002 1,403,543.00 + 12,551.14 + 1818.00 4 Mar 2003 3 months and 26 days 3/272 Sep 2001* 24 Sep 2002 6 Nov 2002   2,803.56 + 169.00 3 Jan 2003   3/271 May 2002 (*) 24 Sep 2002 6 Nov 2002 28 Dec 2002 1,656,695.00 + 12,200.54+ 1818.00 Enforcement since 26 Nov 2002   3/273 Dec 2001* 24 Sep 2002 6 Nov 2002 28 Dec 2002 35,772.74 + 475.73 5 Dec 2002   3/274 Nov 2001* 24 Sep 2002 6 Nov 2002 28 Dec 2002 86,743.81 + 985.44 5 Dec 2002   6/319 Jan 2002* 3 Oct 2002 12 Dec 2002   109560.68 + 1213.61 Enforcement since 21 Jan 2003   4/304, see 3/2 Dec 2001* 8 Oct 2002 18 Dec 2002   Remitted for a fresh consideration     4/318 Aug 2001* 15 Oct 2002 28 Nov 2002   30,068.95 + 418.69 19 Dec 2002 21 days 4/306 Nov 2001* 15 Oct 2002 28 Nov 2002   38,395.40 + 501,95 19 Dec 2002 21 days 3/357 Jul 2002 22 Oct 2002 28 Nov 2002   922,321.00+ 1818.00 19 Dec 2002 21 days 4/332 Jun 2002 5 Nov 2002 10 Dec 2002   1,425,339.00+ 1818.00 Enforcement since 9 Jan 2003   4/334 Jul 2002 22 Nov 2002 13 Feb 2003   1,597,495.00+ 1818.00 Enforcement since 25 Feb 2003   6/359 Aug 2002 25 Nov 2002 13 Feb 2003   1,783,483.00+ 1818.00 6 Mar 2003 21 days 4/424 Aug 2002 10 Dec 2002 10 Feb 2003   1,027,176.00+ 1818.00 26 Feb 2003 16 days 4/432 Sep 2002 10 Dec 2002 10 Feb 2003   1,229,353.58+ 1818.00 Enforcement since 25 Feb 2003   4/319 Oct 2001* 10 Dec 2002 10 Feb 2003   94,942.79 + 1,063.89 26 Feb 2003 16 days 4/409 Mar 2002* 24 Dec 2002 11 Feb 2003   62,546.88 + 736.39 26 Feb 2003 15 days 3/458 Sep 2002 9 Jan 2003 11 Feb 2003   891,401.00 + 1818.00 4 Mar 2003 21 days 4/61 Dec 2002 (*) 18 Mar 2003 10 Jun 2003 9 0ct 2003 1,542,333.00 + 9,583.59     6/108 Jan 2003 * 12 May 2003 7 Jul 2003 22 Sep 2003 7,412.44     3/121 Feb 2003 (*) 27 May 2003 14 Aug 2003 1 Oct 2003 490,063.00 + 4,285.70     3/128 Feb 2003 (*) 10 Jun 2003 29 Oct 2003 4 Mar 2004 405,439.00 + 3,732.00     3/134 Mar 2003 (*) 17 Jun 2003 28 Jul 2003 17 Sep 2003 572,351.00 + 3,161.26     4/176 Apr 2003 (*) 25 Jul 2003 7 Oct 2003 19 Feb 2004 874,741.00 + 7,247.17     6/149 Apr 2003 * 31 Jul 2003 7 Oct 2003   5,205.89     3/156 May 2003 (*) 21 Aug 2003 28 Oct 2003 11 Mar 2004 1,783,796.00 + 13,136.56     3/173 May 2003 (*) 2 Sep 2003 28 Oct 2003 11 Mar 2004 882,009.00 + 6,495.59     3/206 Jun 2003 (*) 23 Sep 2003 4 Dec 2003 8 Apr 2004 202,542.00 + 1,584.82     3/178 Mar 2002 * 17 Oct 2003 16 Dec 2003 29 Apr 2004 125,460.82     3/179 May 2002 * 17 Oct 2003 10 Dec 2003 29 Apr 2004 72,726.29     3/186 Jun 2002 * 17 Oct 2003 2 Dec 2003   125,172.23     4/193 Dec 2002 * 20 Oct 2003 16 Dec 2003 29 Apr 2004 31,442.27     4/194 Nov 2002 * 20 Oct 2003 24 Dec 2003 20 May 2004 29,489.71     6/218 Aug 2002 * 20 Oct 2003 16 Dec 2003 20 May 2004 72,532.39     3/199 Jul 2002 * 24 Oct 2003 16 Dec 2003 22 Apr 2004 75,200.75     3/202 Aug 2002 * 24 Oct 2003 10 Dec 2003 29 Apr 2004 137,909.66     3/208 Apr 2002 * 24 Oct 2003 10 Dec 2003 29 Apr 2004 167,299.33     3/208 Jan 2003 * 28 Oct 2003 10 Dec 2003   15,011.36     3/221 Oct 2003 * 28 Oct 2003 12 Jan 2004 20 May 2004 41,138.87     3/222 Sep 2002 * 28 Oct 2003 12 Jan 2004 20 May 2004 58,283.58     4/284 Jul 2003 (*) 31 Oct 2003 23 Dec 2003 20 May 2004 1,591,575.00 + 12,453.53     6/222 Apr 2002 * 3 Nov 2003 16 Dec 2003 20 May 2004 114,775.97     6/223 Oct 2002 * 3 Nov 2003 16 Dec 2003 22 Apr 2004 91,622.87     6/224 Nov 2002 * 3 Nov 2003 16 Dec 2003 22 Apr 2004 65,148.79     3/278 Jul 2003 (*) 4 Nov 2003 23 Dec 2003 20 May 2004 563,753.00 + 4,021.95     3/279 May 2002 * 4 Nov 2003 2 Dec 2003 8 Apr 2004 210,006.90     6/284 Jul 2002 * 6 Nov 2003 23 Dec 2003 29 Apr 2004 131,457.90     6/285 Sep 2002 * 6 Nov 2003 23 Dec 2003 29 Apr 2004 81,715.91     4/348 Aug 2003 (*) 2 Dec 2003 28 Jan 2004   722,184.00 + 6,315.65     4/349 Aug 2003 (*) 2 Dec 2003 28 Jan 2004   1,425,125.00 + 10,167.19     4/410 Sept 2003 (*) 20 Jan 2004 9 Mar 2004 20 May 2004 1,502,537.00 + 17,289.47     3/372 Sep 2003 (*) 22 Jan 2004 10 Mar 2004 20 May 2004 1,005,394.00 + 12,732.64     6/16 Oct 2003 (*) 16 Feb 2004 1 Mar 2004   600,849.00 + 7,743.54     6/18 Oct 2003 (*) 23 Feb 2004 6 Apr 2004   3,160,409.00 + 37,093.68     3/53 Nov 2003 (*) 9 Mar 2004 13 Apr 2004   559,292.00 + 5,792.12     12/46 Jun 2002 * 25 Mar 2004 27 May 2004   112,188.48     4/118 Jan 2004 (*) 27 Apr 2004 1 Jun 2004   3,490,893.00 + 19,558.24       [1] Date with asterisk means a claim for compensation for the delayed VAT refund for the period mentioned. [2] 1 UAH is approximately 0.15 EUR at present [3] According to the information submitted by the Government [4] The applicant withdrew the execution writs thus terminating the enforcement proceedings by the Bailiffs’ office in the case. Later it claimed successfully the same amount to be awarded directly by the court. The number of the relevant new case is given in brackets. [5] Date without a mark means a claim for VAT refund for the period mentioned; date with asterisk means a claim for compensation for the delayed VAT refund for the period mentioned; date with asterisk in brackets means a claim for both VAT refund and compensation for the period mentioned