CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 janvier 2025

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Published on 17 February 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 14202/24 Joaquin BALASCH against Spain lodged on 6 May 2024 communicated on 27 January 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE On 27 April 2018 the applicant was fined EUR 263.924,36 for failure to pay the income tax due for 2012, 2013 and 2014. The penalty amounted to 125% of the unpaid taxes. The applicant challenged the tax authorities’ decision before the Economic Administrative Court of Catalonia (TEAR). The TEAR upheld the sanction on 2 June 2020. The applicant brought administrative review proceedings before the Catalonia High Court of Justice. By a judgment of 28 June 2021, the applicant’s claim was rejected. On 9 September 2021 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court, complaining, inter alia, about a violation of the right to appeal in criminal matters, following the Court’s case-law in Saquetti Iglesias v. Spain , no. 50514/13, 30 June 2020. He considered that he had had access only to one level of jurisdiction. The appeal on points of law was declared inadmissible on 11 May 2022 for lack of objective interest. The Supreme Court relied on its judgment of 20   December 2021 given in a different case in which it had established that the requirements of a second degree of jurisdiction were fulfilled by the possibility to lodge an appeal on points of law, even if this was ultimately declared inadmissible. In the Supreme Court’s view, this was so especially because the Convention and its Protocols left the system of appeal to be determined by the States. The applicant’s ensuing action for annulment was declared inadmissible by the Supreme Court on 22 June 2022. On 8 January 2024 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s amparo appeal inadmissible. The applicant complains that he did not have access to a second degree of jurisdiction because the regulation of the appeal on points of law in the context of administrative proceedings ( recurso de casación contencioso ‑ administrativo) in Spain is not compatible with the requirements of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7. He argues that the tax sanction imposed on him was of a criminal nature and that the appeal on points of law could not be considered as a second instance, because the Supreme Court rejects most of the appeals on points of law based on lack of objective interest and therefore does not review the element of guilt.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   2 of Protocol No. 7 applicable to the proceedings in the present case?   1.a.     In particular, did the decision of the tax authorities concern a criminal offence consisting of a conviction or sentence (see Saquetti Iglesias v.   Spain , no.   50514/13, §§ 20-29, 30 June 2020)? 1.b.     If so, was the conviction or sentence issued by a tribunal for the purposes of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7?   2.     If Article 2 of Protocol no. 7 is applicable, was the applicant afforded the right of appeal envisaged by Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 7? If not, did the absence of an appeal fall within the exceptions laid down by Article 2 §   2 of Protocol No. 7?   3.     In Spanish law, is the regulation of the appeal on points of law in administrative matters before the Supreme Court capable of infringing the essence of the right to a double degree of jurisdiction under Article 2 § 1 of Protocol No. 7? What is the relevance in this context of the fact that the element of guilt is not amenable to a review by the Supreme Court?