CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 décembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 22 December 2025   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 20000/24 Francisco HORNO GUTIERREZ against Spain lodged on 8 July 2024 communicated on 4 December 2025 STATEMENT OF FACTS The application concerns the issue of lack of notification in administrative tax fraud proceedings. The applicant was the manager of a company. He had two residences in Torredonjimeno and Jamilena (Jaén) and was registered in one of them. On 28 May 2012 the applicant was detained in a Moroccan prison. After his release on 3 December 2012, he was allowed to leave Morocco on 9   May 2013. Meanwhile, on 8 June 2012 his residence was automatically registered, because of being detained, at the Spanish consulate in Tangier. This situation prevailed until 3 June 2013. In October 2012, the Spanish Tax Agency attempted to notify the applicant at both his residences of the opening of proceedings for his joint liability with the company in a tax fraud case. After it had failed to notify him in person, the applicant was summoned to appear in the Tax Agency to be notified, via a notice published in the Tax Agency electronic noticeboard. The applicant did not appear before the Tax Agency. On 20 December 2012 the applicant was declared jointly liable for the tax fraud. The Tax Agency attempted to serve the decision at one of the applicant’s residences in Torredonjimeno. After a failure of service, the applicant was summoned to appear in the Tax Agency to be notified, via a notice published in the Tax Agency electronic noticeboard on 17   January 2013. The applicant did not appear before the Tax Agency. The Tax Agency deemed the notification as having been served on 2 February 2013 and the decision became final. On 26 December 2013 the applicant was called on to pay the debt and the penalty for the tax fraud. The applicant challenged this decision. He complained that he had never been served with the decision that had initiated the proceedings nor with the decision declaring him jointly liable. On 22 February 2022 the Audiencia Nacional rejected his complaint. It held, inter alia , that although he had been in a Moroccan prison at the relevant time, this did not discharge him of his obligation to communicate his change of residence to the Tax Agency. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant argues that he did not have access to a court to challenge on the merits the initiation of the tax proceedings or the final decision that found him liable. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was Article   6 §   1 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case (see Jussila v. Finland [GC], no.   73053/01, §§ 36-38, ECHR 2006-XIV and Melgarejo Martinez de Abellanosa v. Spain , no. 11200/19, § 25, 14 December 2021)? If so, did the applicant have access to a court in the determination of the criminal charges brought against him, in accordance with Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-79, 5   April 2018; Reichman v. France , no. 50147/11, §§ 27-28, 12 July 2016; and Johansen v. Germany , no. 17914/10, §§ 43-45, 15 September 2016)?   2.     Did the applicant receive adequate notification of the administrative decisions (see, Sukhorubchenko v. Russia , no. 69315/01, § 53, 10   February 2005, and Šild v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 59284/08, § 30, 17 September 2013)?   3.     Have the authorities taken the requisite steps to inform the applicant of the existence of the joint liability proceedings, by exercising reasonable efforts to ascertain his place of residence (see Dilipak and Karakaya v.   Turkey , no. 7942/05 and 24838/05, §§ 76-80, 4 March 2014 and Sejdovic v.   Italy [GC], no. 56581/00, § 82 and § 87, ECHR 2006-II)? In view of the information contained in the administrative file regarding the applicant’s pending criminal case in Morocco, did the Tax Agency make sufficient efforts to notify its decisions to the applicant?