CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 4 mars 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s11AD46B1 { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s21338552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt } .s34B51DD { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } 181 04.03.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Patrikova v. Bulgaria (application no. 71835/01)   TAX AUTHORITIES’ SEIZURE OF BUSINESSWOMAN’S MERCHANDISE AND DECISION TO RETAIN IT, EVENTUALLY DECLARING IT ABANDONED, UNLAWFUL   Unanimously   Three violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Violation of Article 6 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) of the European Convention on Human Rights   Principal facts   The applicant, Galina Todorova Patrikova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1967 and lives in Isperih (Bulgaria).   A businesswoman, Ms Patrikova formerly traded in alcohol and tobacco, considered excise duty products under Bulgarian tax law. Following an inspection by Razgrad tax authority on 6 June 2000, merchandise worth the equivalent of 150,000 euros (EUR) was seized, including a significant quantity of tobacco and 98,502 bottles of alcohol. On 27 June 2000 the tax authority issued the applicant with a fine of 221,139 Bulgarian levs (approximately EUR 115,000) on the ground that she only had a trading license and should have obtained a separate license for storage of excise duty products. That decision was ultimately quashed in October 2001 on the ground that the relevant law did not require separate storage licenses. That decision was upheld in January 2002.   Criminal proceedings brought against the applicant for various tax offences, including tax evasion, illicit trading in excise goods and forged tax labels were ultimately dropped in March 2003 due to lack of evidence. There has been no progress in the criminal proceedings, continued against persons unknown, since that time. The authorities ordered the retention of the alcoholic beverages as evidence in the criminal proceedings.   The retained merchandise was inspected in the tax authority’s storage house on 27   February 2002; it was noted that there were 52,118 bottles of alcohol. In the meantime the applicant made numerous requests to convince the tax administration to sell the merchandise before it became non-marketable or unfit for consumption; she had no reply.   On 2 March 2002 all tobacco products were returned to her. She refused, however, to collect the bottles of alcohol as, in her view, the state of the merchandise should be assessed beforehand. She subsequently made repeated attempts to have the remaining merchandise and the value of the missing and damaged bottles assessed, in vain. Despite negotiations on the matter, on 12 April 2004 an order was issued under the relevant provision of the Tax Proceedings Code declaring the merchandise as abandoned property and acquired by the State. The applicant appealed, stating that the goods had not been abandoned. In May 2006 the courts quashed the acquisition order in so far as it concerned the 52,118 bottles, finding that it was irrelevant whether the applicant had abandoned them or not as they had been seized as evidence in criminal proceedings and the tax authorities did not have the power to release them. As concerned the remainder of the bottles, the courts subsequently found that the tax authorities had automatically acquired as abandoned the merchandise because the applicant had not sought to recover it within the time limit of nine months set by the Tax Procedure Code.   On 17 May 2002 the applicant brought a civil claim for damages against the Razgrad tax authority, the police and the prosecuting authorities for unlawful seizure of her merchandise and failure to market it before its expiry date. She claimed the full value of the alcohol. Those proceedings have been adjourned on numerous occasions – due to failure to summon some of the parties, failure of the defendant State bodies to provide access to relevant documents and delays in the work of the court-appointed experts – and, the last scheduled hearing being 16   September 2009, are currently still pending at first instance.   The applicant’s business was declared insolvent in 2006.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 (protection of property), Ms Patrikova complained about the tax authorities’ seizure, retention and declaring abandoned of her merchandise. She further complained under Article   6   §   1 (right to a fair hearing) about the excessive length of the civil proceedings she brought in which she sought damages. She alleged in particular that the only explanation for the obstacles she had encountered when trying to defend her rights could be that the authorities were trying to cover up the disappearance of a significant quantity of her merchandise when it had been held by the local tax office between 2000 and 2002.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 March 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic), Rait Maruste (Estonia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   Article 6 Noting that most of the adjournments in the proceedings for damages had been due to failings attributable to the Bulgarian authorities, the Court considered that their length, seven years and four months for one level of jurisdiction (calculated between the date on which the proceedings were commenced and the date of the last scheduled hearing), had been excessive, in violation of Article   6 § 1.   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Seizure of the applicant’s merchandise Firstly, the Court observed that, the domestic courts had established that the seizure of the applicant’s merchandise in June 2000 had been unlawful under domestic law. Furthermore, that seizure had been ordered on grounds that the applicant did not possess a storage license, while in reality such licenses were not provided for by law and had never been issued in practice. Indeed, a significant number of the seized bottles had apparently disappeared between June 2000 and February 2002 and, in the civil proceedings for damages, access to relevant documents had been denied to court appointed experts. Lastly, despite the applicant’s insistence, an assessment of the remaining merchandise and the value of the missing and damaged bottles had never been undertaken. The Court therefore found it established that the authorities had been responsible for an unlawful loss of and damage to the applicant’s property and that the measures enforced against her had been arbitrary. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the June 2000 seizure and the ensuing pecuniary losses.   Retention of the applicant’s alcohol after January 2002 As concerned the retention of the 52,118 bottles as evidence in the criminal proceedings, it was difficult to accept that the authorities had been entitled to retain the applicant’s merchandise indefinitely in that context, the investigation having remained dormant since March 2003. Nor, in the Court’s view, had the applicant been responsible for the retention of the remaining bottles, her refusal to collect them without prior inspection having been understandable. The Court therefore considered that the retention of the applicant’s alcohol after January 2002 had neither been lawful nor justified, in further violation of Article   1 of Protocol No. 1.   Decision declaring part of the applicant’s merchandise abandoned The context of the applicant’s case, that is to say the tax authorities’ unlawful acts and the proceedings for damages brought against them, had made it clear beyond doubt that the merchandise had been the object of ongoing dispute and had not been abandoned. By refusing to take that context into account and by simply automatically applying the relevant domestic provisions, the Bulgarian courts had made arbitrary judgments which had upheld an unlawful deprivation of property, again in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   Article 41 (just satisfaction) Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant EUR 39,360   in respect of damage and EUR 12,200 for costs and expenses.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Further information about the Court can be found on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int )     Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.