CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 janvier 2004

.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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 60 January 2004 Orion Břeclav s.r.o. v. the Czech Republic (dec.) - 43783/98 Decision 13.1.2004 [Section II] Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 Secure the payment of taxes Increase in the licence fee for running gaming machines: inadmissible The applicant is a company licensed to operate slot machines. In 1998 two new laws provided for the introduction of a fee for operating slot machines and for an increase in the licence fee for their use. The municipalities in which the applicant company ran its business consequently issued decrees making it compulsory to pay fees for operating slot machines. The applicant company challenged the new provisions but without success. Inadmissible under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The interference had been in accordance with domestic legislation and had reflected the requirements of the general interest. As to whether the requirement of proportionality between the interference with the applicant company’s right and the aims pursued had been complied with, the manner in which the legislation in question was to be applied fell within the State’s margin of appreciation in such matters, particularly with regard to the implementation of its economic policies. The applicant company’srights as an owner had for the most part been preserved; its business had made a profit even after the contested increase in the fees and it had been able to obtain special terms for payment. In short, regard being had to the State’s margin of appreciation in this area, the payment of the fees had not had such an effect on the applicant company’s financial position as to amount to a disproportionate measure or an abuse of the State’s right to secure the payment of taxes and other contributions: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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