CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 26 septembre 2000

.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 22 September 2000 Janosevic v. Sweden (dec.) - 34619/97 Decision 26.9.2000 [Section I] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Criminal charge Special charge imposed for sending incorrect tax return: admissible Article 6-2 Presumption of innocence Enforcement proceedings instituted to levy additional taxes and special charge while proceedings for reconsideration of decision imposing them pending: admissible In 1995, the applicant’s company was subjected to a tax audit. The tax authorities having found irregularities in the applicant’s tax return for 1994, additional taxes were imposed on him together with a special charge. In 1996, he requested the tax authorities to reconsider their decision on the ground that the discretionary assessment of the company’s turnover for the year in question was erroneous. In 1999, the tax authorities having confirmed their position, he brought the matter before the County Administrative Court, where the case is still pending. In view of the considerable amount of additional taxes imposed on him, the applicant joined to his initial request for reconsideration a request for a stay of payment. The tax authorities asked him to provide a security as a prerequisite. He failed to do so and, consequently, his request for a stay of payment was rejected. His appeals were to no avail. In 1996, in spite of the pending proceedings for reconsideration, the tax authorities initiated enforcement proceedings to recover the additional taxes and special charge. The District Court declared the applicant bankrupt. His appeals remained unsuccessful but the bankruptcy was later written off on account of indigence. Admissible under Article 6.     © 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