CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 12 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s2BF5EB6D { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 3 May 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 55061/16 INTRAKOM HAYASTAN LTD against Armenia lodged on 16 September 2016 communicated on 12 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged interference with the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions as a result of the alleged unlawful assessment of its tax liability. Following an inspection of the financial activities carried out by the Ministry of Finance in September 2014, the applicant company, by an administrative act dated 19 November 2014, was ordered to pay 62,734,985   Armenian drams (approximately 107,945.59 euros) in value added tax (VAT) arrears together with penalties for late payment. This tax assessment was based on findings during the inspection that some of the fiscal accounts of the applicant company, did not indicate the correct address of its supplier, a foreign company which was registered for the purposes of VAT. In particular, the inspection found that instead of indicating the supplier’s address, the applicant company’s own address was given as the place of provision of services. The applicant company unsuccessfully challenged the results of that inspection before the administrative courts. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant company complains that the amount of tax and penalties that it was ordered to pay amounted to an excessive individual burden which upset the fair balance that must be maintained between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the right to property. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been an interference with the applicant company’s right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? 2.     In the affirmative, was that interference necessary to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties? Did it impose a disproportionate and excessive individual burden on the applicant company (see Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev v. Russia , nos. 11082/06 and 13772/05, §   870, 25 July 2013; Stefan Nazarev and Others v. Bulgaria (dec.), nos.   26553/05, 256912/09, 40107/09 and 12509/10, 25 January 2011; and Euromak Metal Doo v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   68039/14, §§ 43-50, 14 June 2018)?