CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 novembre 2018

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .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 } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 25 November 2018   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 74120/14 S.C. MIC PETROCHIM INDUSTRIE S.R.L. against Romania lodged on 18 November 2014 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the unfairness and the excessive length of the tax surcharge proceedings opened against the applicant company – a company which ceased to exist in 2016 and whose full debt was passed on to the second applicant, who was its administrator and expressed his intention to continue the proceedings initiated by the applicant company before the Court. In addition, it concerns the applicant company’s double investigation for the same facts. In particular, the applicant company argued, expressly, under Article 6, and, in substance, under article 4 of Protocol No. 7 that by the final judgments of 3 June 2010 delivered by the Vâlcea County Court and 22 May 2014 delivered by the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the authorities reached contrasting conclusions concerning its guilt for the same facts and gave different weight to the same evidence in separate proceedings concerning challenges against, respectively, a fine and seizure of property, and the imposition of tax surcharges. Thus, the final judgment of 22 May 2014 had breached the principle of legal certainty because it had ignored the final judgment of 3 June 2010, had breached the principle of equality of arms because it had given more weight to the expert report submitted by the tax authorities than to the reports submitted by the applicant company, and had cancelled the previous findings of the domestic courts concerning the lawful nature of its activities. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Were the tax surcharge proceedings opened against the applicant company fair and conducted within a reasonable time in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention? In particular, did the tax surcharge proceedings respect the principles of legal certainty and equality of arms and were they concluded speedily (see Brudan v. Romania, no.   75717/14, 10 April 2018)?   2.     Has the applicant company been investigated and tried twice for the same offence within the meaning of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention (see Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia [GC], no. 14939/03, ECHR   2009)?