CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 mai 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 June 2021   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 47005/18 Constantin-Daniel IVANOV against Romania lodged on 14 September 2018 communicated on 19 May 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to a court was breached by the excessively formalistic interpretation given by the domestic courts to the legal provisions providing the right of a claimant to be reinstated in the time-limit set for lodging a challenge against enforcement decisions, if there are exceptional circumstances proving that the claimant was not/could not have become aware of the impugned decision. The applicant is a diagnosed schizophrenic who was declared incapable to be held criminally accountable for a criminal offence and, as a result, was the subject of a preventive measure under the Criminal Code, spending significant amounts of time in a psychiatric facility in 2013, 2014, and 2016. On 19 October 2015, the National Agency for Fiscal Administration issued a decision concerning the applicant’s tax liability (in his capacity as single shareholder of a private company), applying tax surcharges and an administrative fine. The decision was initially communicated at the applicant’s home by registered mail but, on 27 October 2015, the envelope was returned to the post office, following a failure of delivery On 4 December 2015, a notice of the impugned tax decision was posted at the fiscal authority’s regional office and on the institution’s website. On 28 April 2016 enforcement proceedings were instituted against the applicant. On 30 May 2016 the applicant lodged a challenge against the tax decision, arguing that when it had been notified to him, he had been residing with his brother, following the replacement of the hospitalization measure with outpatient care under the Criminal Code. He argued that his medical situation as well as the concrete circumstances of his case constituted exceptional reasons, sufficient to allow him to lodge, as permitted by the domestic law, a challenge outside the legal time-limit, namely within thirty days from the moment when he found out about the impugned act. His challenge was dismissed in the final decision of 16 March 2018 as being lodged out of time. The courts considered that there had been no exceptional reason preventing the applicant from lodging the challenge against the tax decision in due time. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Did the applicant have a fair hearing by a tribunal in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to his particular personal circumstances, has the courts’ refusal to reinstate him in the time-limit allowing him to challenge the outstanding fiscal decision, deprived him of an examination of the merits of his complaint, amounting to excessive formalism (see for instance Lay Lay Company Limited v. Malta , no.   30633/11, § 56, 23 July 2013, and Zavodnik v. Slovenia , no.   53723/13, §   74, 21 May 2015)?