CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 avril 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 26 April 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 21038/11 AGRIMEC S.R.L. against the Republic of Moldova lodged on 22 March 2011 communicated on 7 April 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant company imported grains which were declared to the customs authorities as being delivered to bread production companies in Moldova. As such, no VAT tax was payable for such imports. Having delivered most of the grains to the intended clients, a small portion was left out and had to be sold to other companies. Since selling to companies other than those producing bread was not exempted from VAT, the applicant company paid VAT for the part so sold to the tax authority. Subsequently, the customs tax authority decided that the applicant company had breached the law and ordered the payment of the VAT plus a penalty, both of which the applicant company unsuccessfully contested before the domestic courts. The applicant company complains about bearing of an individual and excessive burden by having to pay the VAT tax a second time after it has paid it already (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention). QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, did the applicant company bear an individual and excessive burden by having to pay twice the value-added tax levied on the same sale? (see, mutatis mutandis , Dacia S.R.L. v. Moldova , no. 3052/04, §§ 53-66, 18 March 2008)