CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 novembre 2020

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 249 March 2021 Vegotex International S.A. v. Belgium (referral) - 49812/09 Judgment 10.11.2020 [Section III] Article 6 Administrative proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Tax debt time-barred by retroactive effect of judicial decision but subsequently reinstated, while dispute still pending and with aim of providing legal certainty, by retrospective but foreseeable legislation: case referred to the Grand Chamber In 1995 the tax authorities corrected a tax return filed by the applicant company and applied a 10% penalty on the amount due. The applicant appealed and pending these proceedings the following occurred: (i)   in October 2000 the tax authorities issued a summons to pay with the aim of interrupting the period before the tax debt became time-barred; (ii)   in a judgment of 10   October 2002 the Court of Cassation adopted new case-law with retroactive effect which resulted in the recovery of tax debt being time-barred; (iii)   in July 2004 the legislature intervened to reverse this development and to restore the previous administrative practice by means of a law that was immediately applicable to pending proceedings. This legislation was then applied to the applicant’s case by the Court of Cassation, which consequently dismissed its appeal on points of law. In a judgment of 10 November 2020 (see Legal Summary ), a Chamber of the Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 §   1 in respect of the legislature’s intervention in the proceedings and the principle of legal certainty. It held, in particular, that the impugned retrospective application of the legislation in question had been driven by a compelling reason of general interest: to restore the interruption of the limitation period by payment orders that had been served well before the Court of Cassation’s 2002 judgment, thus enabling the resolution of disputes pending before the courts and without affecting the rights of taxpayers. The Chamber also held, unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 §   1 (right to an adversarial procedure and the right of access to a court) on account of the substitution of grounds of appeal carried out by the Court of Cassation of its own motion; and that there had been a violation of Article 6 §   1 on account of the length of the proceedings. On 8 March 2021 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the applicant’s request.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes