Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-2; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1; Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3; Costs and expenses award – Convention proceedings
Fines were imposed on the applicants in respect of tax evasion by their late husband and father. The Court reaffirmed the three criteria to be taken into account for the purposes of classification and reiterated that the concept of ‘criminal charge’ within the meaning of Article 6 is an autonomous one. Reference was made to the nature and severity of the penalty risked, and found that the fines were not inconsiderable.
Held: As regards the nature of the offence, tax legislation lays down certain requirements, to which it attached penalties in the event of non-compliance. The penalties, taking the form of fines, are not intended as pecuniary compensation for damages but are essentially punitive and deterrent in nature. As regards the classification of the proceedings under national law, the Court attaches weight to the findings of the highest court in the land, the Federal Court, in its judgment in this case, that the fine in question was ‘penal’ in character and depended on the ‘guilt’ of the offending taxpayer. Having regard to the above Article 6 was applicable nder its criminal head. Inheritance of the guilt of the dead is not compatible with the standards of criminal justice in a society governed by the rule of law.
19958/92, (1997) 26 EHRR 541, [1997] ECHR 50
Worldlii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Gora and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise and others CA 11-Apr-2003
gora_custCA2003
The appellants challenged decisions of the VAT and Duties Tribunal after seizure of their goods, and in particular whether the cases had been criminal or civil cases and following Roth, whether the respondent’s policy had been lawful and . .
Cited – Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals) HL 27-Jan-2005
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations.
Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed.
Lord Bingham stated: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 September 2021; Ref: scu.165525