CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 juin 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside }   Communicated on 20 June 2018   FIRST SECTION Application no. 17778/16 Meliha PANEVA against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and 2 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern special tax proceedings conducted under the Act Against Corruption (applications nos. 17778/16 and 9680/17) or Personal Income Tax Act (application no. 7735/17) in which a tax rate of 70% (higher than the general tax rate) was applied to undeclared and untaxed revenue which the applicants had obtained while in office (customs official and a trial court judge, applications nos. 17778/16 and 9680/17, respectively) or during the period under consideration (2002-2007, application no. 7735/17). The amount which the applicants were ordered to pay was between EUR 11,000 and EUR 115,000. No other proceedings were instituted against the applicants. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the impugned measure (special tax rate of 70%) compatible with the requirements of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1? With respect to application no. 7735/17, was it “in accordance with the law”, insofar as it concerned taxed revenue that the applicant had obtained before 1 July 2006, the date when section 94(a-d) of the Personal Income Tax Act (on which the impugned measure was based) became operable ( се применува )? Did the impugned measure impose an excessive burden on the applicants (see, mutatis mutandis , R.Sz. v. Hungary , no. 41838/11, 2 July 2013)?   2.     Regarding application no. 7735/07, was Article 7 of the Convention applicable to the impugned proceedings? If so, was relevant domestic law (section 94(a-d) of the Personal Income Tax Act) applied retroactively, in contravention to Article 7 of the Convention, insofar as it concerns taxed revenue obtained by the applicant before 1 July 2006, the date when that provision became operable? If so, was a higher tax rate applied in the applicant’s case than the one which was applicable at the time when he had obtained that revenue, contrary to Article   7 of the Convention? APPENDIX   No. Application no. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Represented by   17778/16 29/03/2016 Meliha PANEVA 06/04/1965 Skopje   Irena CVETKOVSKA   7735/17 20/01/2017 Vasil PETRUSHEV 30/09/1948 Bogdanci   Filip MEDARSKI   9680/17 27/01/2017 Djemailji ARIFI 14/01/1957 Glogi   Filip MEDARSKI