CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 février 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 21 February 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 21954/16 AVTO ATOM DOO KOCANI against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia lodged on 13 April 2016 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The case concerns administrative proceedings in which the applicant company was ordered to pay value-added tax (“VAT”) together with interest, which it had previously deducted from its tax obligation towards the State. It concerned VAT deductions based on invoices that it had obtained from a supplier which had expressed VAT on its invoices although it had not been registered for VAT purposes. The administrative authorities and two levels of administrative courts dismissed the applicant company’s arguments that it had not been aware of the supplier’s VAT status and that it should not suffer financial consequences for errors on the part of the supplier. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 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? If so, was that interference: (a)   necessary to secure the payment of taxes; (b)   in the general interest; and (c)   with regard to the payment required by the State, did it impose an excessive individual burden for the applicant company (see Business Support Centre v. Bulgaria , no.   6689/03, § 21 -23, 18 March 2010)?