CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 mai 2019

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 24 May 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 69776/17 HI TECH CORPORATION DOO against North Macedonia lodged on 20 September 2017 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns tax assessment proceedings. In 2009 the applicant company was subject to a tax audit in which it was ordered to pay further income tax in the amount of 1,9 million denars (MKD) for 2007. In 2012, the authorities reopened the proceedings for that year on the basis of new evidence. A fresh tax audit was carried out for 2007, the resulting effect of which was a new decision of the tax authorities ordering the applicant company to pay income tax amounting to 20,6 million MKD, plus interest. The applicant company unsuccessfully challenged this decision before the Ministry of Finance and the administrative courts complaining, inter alia , that the evidence which had served as basis for reopening of the proceedings had been already admitted in the 2009 tax audit and assessed by the tax authorities. On 3 March 2017 the Higher Administrative Court dismissed the applicant company’s administrative dispute claim. This judgment was served on the applicant company on 27 March 2017. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1?   2.     If so, was that interference necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? In particular, did that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant company?