CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 mars 2022

.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 21 March 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 50568/11 ART GRUP-TRANS S.R.L. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 1 August 2011 communicated on 2 March 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the obligation for the applicant company (the transporter) to pay import tax owed by other companies (the importers) and the courts’ reasons for accepting this. The applicant company is an international transporting organisation (TIR). It has transported various merchandise from Turkey into Moldova. After it was discovered that the value of some of the items imported had been underdeclared to the Customs office, and following the disappearance of the importers, the Customs Office decided to claim from the applicant company the unpaid tax. The courts accepted this claim, despite the applicant company’s arguments that it had fully complied with its obligations as a transporter, was not expected to know and was not proven to know either the real value of merchandise it transported or the fact that, after importation, the importers submitted to the Customs Office documents different from those which they had handed to the applicant company (as well as to the Romanian customs authorities) and which reflected correctly the entire importing process. The applicant company complains of a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that the domestic courts did not provide sufficient reasons for their judgments, notably by responding to the serious arguments raised by the applicant company. It also complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that it had to pay tax owed by other companies in the absence of any evidence of its own wrongdoing. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, as a result of the judgments adopted, did the applicant company have to bear “an individual and excessive burden” within the meaning of that provision (see   Lekić v. Slovenia [GC], no. 36480/07, §   110, 11 December 2018)?   2.     Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the domestic courts adequately state the reasons on which their decisions were based, notably by giving a specific and express reply to those of the applicant company’s submissions which were decisive for the outcome of the proceedings ( Covalenco v. the Republic of Moldova , no. 72164/14, §§   24 and 27, 16 June 2020)?