CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 mai 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   377 11.05.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Antoine Versini v. France (application no. 11898/05)     CRIMINAL TRIAL OF A RESTAURATEUR ACCUSED OF TAX OFFENCES WAS FAIR   Unanimously:   No violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights   Principal facts   The applicant, Antoine Versini, is a French national who was born in 1934 and lives in La Colle-sur-Loup (France). In 1995 the tax authorities issued the company running a prestigious hotel and restaurant of which he was the manager with a supplementary corporation-tax and VAT assessment (together with interest for late payment and penalties). At the same time, the applicant and his wife were issued with a supplementary income-tax assessment, together with penalties.   After a number of unsuccessful administrative challenges, the company applied to the Nice Administrative Court for judicial review. In May 1999 the tax authorities granted full relief from the corporation tax due and the related penalties. In July 1999 the court appointed an expert to produce a report on whether or not the bases used by the tax authorities in the assessment of VAT had been excessive. The applicant and his lawyer submitted various letters and supporting documents to the expert in 2002. The report was produced in June 2004. It did not find any serious irregularities in the company’s accounts, but nevertheless noted some areas of uncertainty. On 14 December 2004 the court upheld the supplementary VAT assessment for 1991 in full and for 1992 in part. However, it exempted the company from payment of the VAT and related penalties for 1992 and 1993. The judgment became final in the absence of an appeal, and the tax authorities granted Mr Versini and his wife full relief from the supplementary income-tax demands.   Alongside the administrative proceedings concerning the company, criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr Versini as the manager after a criminal complaint had been lodged against him in May 1997 by the director of the Alpes-Maritimes Tax Office. In February 2000 the prosecuting authorities served a summons on him to appear directly before the Grasse Criminal Court on charges of fraudulently evading the assessment and payment of corporation tax and VAT, and omitting to make entries or to cause entries to be made in accounting records. The tax authorities applied to join the proceedings as a civil party. On 5 April 2000 the court found Mr Versini guilty as charged, gave him a six-month suspended prison sentence and ordered him to arrange for the publication and public display of the judgment; he was also held jointly and severally liable, together with the company, for payment of the sums owing to the State. The court noted that the institution of proceedings in the Administrative Court had no bearing on the assessment of Mr Versini’s guilt by the criminal courts. Mr Versini subsequently appealed, assisted by a lawyer, seeking an adjournment until the expert appointed in the administrative proceedings submitted his report. On 24 September 2003 the Aix-en-Provence Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant of evading corporation tax, after noting that the tax authorities had granted full relief from that tax. It upheld the remainder of his conviction, although it reduced the suspended prison sentence to four months. On 6 October 2004 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal on points of law by Mr Versini.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article   6   §   1 of the Convention, Mr Versini alleged that his criminal trial had been unfair in that the principle of equality of arms had been breached. He complained that he had been summoned to appear directly before the Criminal Court without a prior investigation, and submitted that he had been convicted solely on the basis of the evidence produced by the tax authorities. He further argued that he had been put at a clear disadvantage in relation to the authorities because the Court of Appeal had given its ruling without waiting for the expert’s report to be submitted to the Administrative Court.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 29 March 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), President , Renate Jaeger (Germany), Jean-Paul Costa (France), Karel Jungwiert (Czech Republic), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria), judges , and also Stephen Phillips , Deputy Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   Concerning Mr Versini’s complaint that he had been summoned to appear directly before the Criminal Court, the Court reiterated that summoning a person in this way was compatible with a fair trial, provided that the defendant was afforded every opportunity to answer the charges against him. In the present case, Mr Versini had been summoned to appear in court two years and nine months after the director of the Tax Office had lodged his complaint. He had therefore had the time to prepare his defence.   Concerning Mr Versini’s complaint that his criminal conviction had been based solely on the evidence produced by the tax authorities, the Court reiterated that, in order to convict a person of tax evasion, the criminal courts – which had exclusive jurisdiction in assessing the facts of the alleged offence – had, firstly, to determine whether the tax authorities’ findings were correct and, secondly, to ensure that the evidence was examined in adversarial proceedings. Those principles had been observed in the present case. In addition, Mr Versini had had the option of requesting additional investigative measures or adducing any evidence that could contradict the position of the tax authorities. There had been nothing to prevent him from producing in the Court of Appeal (which had given judgment in September 2003) the evidence he had already submitted to the expert (in 2002) in the administrative proceedings, which had led the expert to conclude that, despite some areas of uncertainty, there had been no serious irregularities in the company’s accounts. Mr Versini had therefore had the opportunity to submit argument on the charges against him at two levels of jurisdiction, subject to final review by the Court of Cassation.   Lastly, the Court examined the complaint that Mr Versini had been put at a disadvantage because the Court of Appeal had given its ruling without waiting for the expert’s report to be submitted to the Administrative Court. It noted, firstly, that administrative and criminal proceedings were independent of each other and had different aims and purposes: the administrative courts had jurisdiction in tax matters (giving decisions on the tax base and the scope of taxation), whereas the criminal courts tried cases of tax evasion (determining whether the defendant had evaded or attempted to evade tax by reprehensible subterfuges). Moreover, the administrative courts’ decisions were not binding on the criminal courts. The Court further held that, even if the Court of Appeal had adjourned the case until the report was submitted, there was no indication that it would have reached a different conclusion, bearing in mind the expert’s findings and the areas of uncertainty noted by him.   Having regard to all the above factors, the Court considered that the principle of equality of arms had been observed and that there had therefore been no violation of Article 6 § 1.   ***   The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 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.