CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mai 2023

.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 } Published on 12 June 2023   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 36219/19 SIA TAVEX against Latvia lodged on 3 July 2019 communicated on 26 May 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the length of administrative proceedings and the lack of domestic remedies in this regard. The State Revenue Service (the “SRS”) carried out a tax audit and by a decision of 29 November 2012 ordered the applicant company to pay VAT penalty, additional corporate income tax, late payment and corporate income tax penalty (in total amounting to LVL 143,387.89 – approximately EUR   204,022.58). The applicant company lodged an appeal against the SRS decision with the administrative authority and administrative courts. Those proceedings are still ongoing and presently have lasted more than 10 years and 5 months at three levels of jurisdiction (including two remittals). The applicant company complains under Article   6   §   1 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 about the length of administrative proceedings and lack of domestic remedies in this regard. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant company exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Is the length of the administrative proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant company have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its complaint under Article 6 § 1, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?