CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 juin 2012

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s504DB88A { font-family:Arial; color:#999999 } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF2965512 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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. 153 June 2012 Segame SA v. France - 4837/06 Judgment 7.6.2012 [Section V] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Access to court Inability for domestic courts to adjust rate of administrative fine set by law: no violation   Facts – The applicant company is a public limited company which ran an art gallery. In 1993 the Paris Commercial Court issued orders for its judicial reorganisation and subsequent liquidation. The following year the tax authorities sent it two supplementary tax assessments, concerning, in particular, demands for tax arrears. These assessments were accompanied by a fine equal to 100% of the unpaid tax. During the proceedings, a legislative amendment reduced the rate of the fine from 100% to 25%; the tax authorities applied this new provision to the applicant company. In 1998 the applicant company applied to the courts for exemption from the assessments and alleged, inter alia , that the fine was incompatible with Article 6 §   1 of the Convention, since it could not be adjusted by the court to take account of the seriousness of the taxpayer’s conduct in line with a scale the legislature should have laid down. The application was dismissed, the Conseil d’Etat holding, in particular, that the tax courts had full jurisdiction in accordance with Article 6 §   1 and that that provision did not require, in cases where the legislature had fixed a flat rate for the fine in question, that the courts should have power to substitute a lower rate. Law – Article 6 § 1: The applicant company had been able to bring proceedings for exemption from the supplementary tax assessment and penalties, and subsequently to lodge an ordinary appeal and an appeal on points of law. This was a full appellate procedure in which the administrative courts enjoyed wide powers to examine all the factual and legal aspects and not only set aside or validate an administrative decision, but also to amend it, or even substitute their own decision for that of the authorities while ruling on the taxpayer’s rights. In tax matters, they could exempt the taxpayer from the taxes and penalties imposed, amend the sum demanded to the extent permitted by law and, in respect of penalties, substitute a higher or lower rate, again to the extent permitted by law. The applicant company’s had complained that the administrative courts had not, in the absence of any statutory provision, had jurisdiction to adjust the amount of the fine imposed in respect of the unpaid tax. The Court noted, however, that the legislation itself made the fine proportionate to a certain extent to the seriousness of the taxpayer’s conduct since it was fixed as a percentage of the unpaid tax and the applicant company had had ample opportunity to challenge the base used for calculating it. The applicant company had therefore been able to put forward all the factual and legal arguments it considered relevant. The Court further noted that, owing to their special nature, tax proceedings had to be effective in order to preserve the State’s interests and that such proceedings did not form part of the hard core of criminal law for the purposes of the Convention. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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