CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 décembre 2022

.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 2 January 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 78572/17 BOURIKAS AVEE against Greece lodged on 1 November 2017 communicated on 7 December 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the Administrative Court of Appeal’s decisions to declare the applicant’s appeals inadmissible owing to non-compliance with the requirement set out in the law to pay part of the imposed tax or fine. The applicant is a company which declared bankruptcy and ceased its functions. Following tax controls, the tax administration imposed taxes, additional taxes for false declaration ( πρόσθετος φόρος ανακριβούς δήλωσης ) and fines for irregularities found in its book-keeping relating to the receipt and registration of fictitious invoices. The applicant lodged actions with the Halkida Administrative Court of First Instance. Following their dismissal, the applicant appealed. The Pireaus Administrative Court of Appeal declared the appeals inadmissible because the admissibility condition of paying 50% of the imposed tax or fine in the case was not met. The applicant did not appeal on points of law because it was in financial difficulty and arguing that it would have been an ineffective remedy that was bound to fail, in view of the standard case-law of the Supreme Administrative Court on the relevant legal question and the admissibility requirements applicable to appeals on points of law. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant company complains that it was deprived of the right of access to the Court of Appeal when it declared the appeals inadmissible because the amounts were such that it was not in a position to pay them because of its financial situation. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case, in particular as regards the additional taxes for false declaration and the fines?   2.     Did the applicant exhaust domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the national legal framework at the relevant time, as interpreted and applied by national courts, provide for an exemption from the payment of the 50% of the imposed fines? If so, was there an effective system in place for applying and granting such exemption?   3.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right of access to court as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the requirement to pay 50% of the imposed fines?