CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 juin 2003

.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 } .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 55 July 2003 Morel v. France (dec.) - 54559/00 Decision 3.6.2003 [Section II] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Criminal charge Applicability of Article 6 to a 10% tax adjustment: inadmissible The tax authorities served value added tax reminders tax on the applicant, together with interest for late payment, and, pursuant to Article 1728 § 1 of the General Tax Code, a surcharge of 10%. The applicant complains of the length of the ensuing tax proceedings. Inadmissible under Article 6 § 1: The Court recalls that tax proceedings do not concern “civil rights and obligations” (cf. the Ferrazzini judgment, ECHR 2001-VII). In the present case, the Court considers that the tax proceedings did not resolve a “criminal charge”. Article 1728 § 1 of the General Tax Code applies to all citizens in their capacity as taxpayers, requires certain conduct of them and imposes a surcharge to enforce that requirement. The purpose of the surcharge is to prevent the recurrence of similar acts. It is based on a general rule whose purpose is both preventive and punitive. Owing to its rate of 10%, the surcharge is relatively insignificant; and in the present case, as it amounted to a total of FRF4,450, it is a long way from assuming the “considerable extent” of the sums on which the Court based its finding in the Bendenoun judgment of 24 February 1994 that the case was “criminal” in nature: incompatible ratione materiae .   © 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