CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 avril 1999

.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 5 April 1999 Vidacar S.A. and Opergrup S.L. v. Spain (dec.) - 41601/98 and 41775/98 Decision 20.4.1999 [Section IV] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Fairness of tax proceedings: inadmissible The two applicant companies, who operated a gaming concern, were required to pay an annual duty on their fruit machines. The rates of duty for 1990 were set by legislative decree but were increased by a statute passed that same year. The applicant companies brought various proceedings challenging the statute and requested that the issue of its constitutionality be referred to the Constitutional Court. The first-instance and appellate courts refused to make the referral and the Constitutional Court, sitting as a final court of appeal, dismissed the applicant companies’ amparo appeal, despite having declared the provision concerned unconstitutional and void a few months earlier on a referral from another court. Unlike the companies that had been successful in those proceedings, the applicant companies were therefore unable to recover the additional duty they had paid. They relied on Article 6 § 1 and Article 14. Inadmissible under Article 6, which did not apply to tax proceedings. The fact that proceedings were of a pecuniary nature was not enough to make them “rights and obligations of a civil nature”, notably where the pecuniary obligation had arisen from fiscal legislation: 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