CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 novembre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   721 23.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT JUSSILA v. FINLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public hearing its Grand Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Jussila v. Finland (application no. 73053/01).   The Court held, by 14 votes to three, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention of Human Rights. (The judgment is available in English and French.)   1.     Principal facts   The case concerns an application brought by a Finnish national, Esa Jussila, who was born in 1949 and lives in Tampere (Finland).   On 22 May 1998 the Tax Office (verotoimisto, skattebyrån) in Häme asked the applicant to submit his observations regarding some alleged errors in his value added tax (VAT) declarations (arvonlisävero, mervärdesskatt) for the fiscal years 1994 and 1995.   On 9 July 1998 the Tax Office found that the applicant was, among other things, obliged to pay tax surcharges (veronkorotus, skatteförhöjning) amounting to 10% of the reassessed tax liability. The additional tax surcharges levied on the applicant totalled 1,836 Finnish Marks, equivalent to 308.80 euros. The tax surcharges were based on the fact that the applicant’s VAT declarations in 1994-1995 were regarded as incomplete.   The applicant appealed to the County Administrative Court (lääninoikeus, länsrätten) of Uusimaa (which later became the Administrative Court of Helsinki; hallinto-oikeus, förvaltningsdomstolen). The applicant requested an oral hearing and that a tax inspector as well as an expert appointed by the applicant be heard as witnesses. On 1 February 2000 the Administrative Court of Helsinki took an interim decision inviting written observations from the tax inspector and a statement from an expert chosen by the applicant. The tax inspector submitted her statement of 13 February 2000 to the Administrative Court. The statement was further submitted to the applicant for his observations. On 25 April 2000 the applicant submitted his own observations on the tax inspector’s statement. The statement of the expert chosen by him was dated and submitted to the court on the same day.   On 13 June 2000 the Administrative Court held that an oral hearing was manifestly unnecessary in the matter because both parties had submitted all the necessary information in writing. It also rejected the applicant’s claims.   The applicant unsuccessfully requested leave to appeal.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 June 2001. On 14 February 2006 the Chamber dealing with the case relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, in accordance with Article 30 [2] of the Convention. A hearing took place in public in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 5 July 2006.   Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Nicolas Bratza (British), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) [3] , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese) Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Josep Casadevall (Andorran), Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Ljiljana Mijović (citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Ján Šikuta (Slovakian), judges , and also Erik Fribergh , Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [4]   Complaint   The applicant alleged that he did not receive a fair hearing in the proceedings in which a tax surcharge was imposed as there was no oral hearing. He relied on Article 6.   Decision of the Court   Article 6 § 1   Applicability The Court found that, although the tax surcharges in the case were part of the fiscal regime, they were imposed by a rule whose purpose was deterrent and punitive. The offence was therefore “criminal”, within the meaning of Article 6 and the Court held, by 13 votes to four, that Article 6 was applicable in the applicant’s case.   Compliance The Court observed that applicant's purpose in requesting a hearing was to challenge the reliability and accuracy of the report on the tax inspection by cross-examining the tax inspector and obtaining supporting testimony from his own expert since, in his view, the tax inspector had misinterpreted the requirements laid down by the relevant legislation and given an inaccurate account of his financial position. His reasons for requesting a hearing therefore concerned in large part the validity of the tax assessment, which as such fell outside the scope of Article 6, although there was the additional question of whether the applicant's bookkeeping had been so deficient so as to justify a surcharge. The Administrative Court, which took the measure of inviting written observations from the tax inspector and after that a statement from an expert chosen by the applicant, found in the circumstances that an oral hearing was manifestly unnecessary, as the information provided by the applicant himself formed a sufficient factual basis for the consideration of the case.   The Court did not doubt that checking and ensuring that the taxpayer had given an accurate account of his or her affairs and that supporting documents had been properly produced might often be more efficiently dealt with in writing than in oral argument. Nor was it persuaded by the applicant that any issues of credibility arose in the proceedings which required oral presentation of evidence or cross-examination of witnesses and the Court found force in the Government's argument that any issues of fact and law could be adequately addressed in, and decided on the basis of, written submissions.   The Court further observed that the applicant was not denied the possibility of requesting an oral hearing, although it was for the courts to decide whether a hearing was necessary. The Administrative Court gave such consideration with reasons. The Court also noted the minor sum of money at stake. Since the applicant was given ample opportunity to put forward his case in writing and to comment on the submissions of the tax authority, the Court found that the requirements of fairness were complied with and did not, in the particular circumstances of the case, necessitate an oral hearing. There had, therefore, been no violation of Article 6 § 1.     Judges Costa, Cabral Barreto and Mularoni were joined by Judge Caflisch and expressed a joint partly dissenting opinion, and Judge Loucaides expressed a partly dissenting opinion joined by Judges Zupančič and Spielmann, both of which are annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). [2] .     Si l’affaire pendante devant une chambre soulève une question grave relative à l’interprétation de la Convention ou de ses Protocoles, ou si la solution d’une question peut conduire à une contradiction avec un arrêt rendu antérieurement par la Cour, la chambre peut, tant qu’elle n’a pas rendu son arrêt, se dessaisir au profit de la Grande Chambre, à moins que l’une des parties ne s’y oppose. [3] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [4] Tis summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.