CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 janvier 2009

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 115 January 2009 OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia (dec.) - 14902/04 Decision 29.1.2009 [Section I] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Alleged procedural defects in proceedings concerning tax penalties: admissible The applicant was a holding company established by the Russian Government in 1993 to own and control a number of stand-alone entities specialised in oil production. It had been fully State-owned until 1995-1996 when, through a series of tenders and auctions, it was privatised. On 14 April 2004, the Tax Ministry ordered the applicant company to pay tax arrears for the year 2000 as well as default interest and a fine in the amount of EUR 2.89 billion. On the same day, the Ministry applied to the Moscow City Commercial Court requesting the seizure of the applicant company's assets as security for the claim. The court issued an injunction prohibiting the applicant company from disposing of its assets pending the outcome of the litigation, but the injunction did not concern goods produced by the company and related cash transactions. The domestic courts for the most part upheld the Ministry's decision and the court judgment in this respect became enforceable on 29 June 2004. On the following day the court issued a writ of execution and the bailiffs commenced the enforcement, seized the applicant company's assets and gave it five days to pay the debt voluntarily. Analogous proceedings were conducted in respect of the applicant company's 2001-2003 tax assessment. The applicant company eventually went bankrupt and in 2007 it ceased to exist. Law : Since the applicant company had been liquidated by a domestic court decision of 12 November 2007, the Government had requested the Court to discontinue the examination of the case. The Court noted that the various alleged breaches of the Convention in the applicant company's case concerned tax assessments and enforcement proceedings which had eventually resulted in its bankruptcy and ceasing to exist as a legal person. Striking the application out of the list under such circumstances would have undermined the very essence of the right of individual applications by legal persons, as it would have encouraged governments to deprive such entities of the possibility to pursue an application lodged at a time when they enjoyed legal personality. The Government's request was therefore rejected. Admissible under Article 6   §   1 (concerning the 2000 tax assessment), Article 7 of the Convention (concerning the lack of a proper legal basis, selective and arbitrary prosecution and the imposition of double penalties in the 2000-2003 tax assessments) and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and in conjunction with Articles 1, 13, 14 and 18 of the Convention (concerning the lawfulness and proportionality of the 2000-2003 tax assessments and their subsequent enforcement).   © 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