CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 24 février 1994

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s1B561845 { width:23.78pt; display:inline-block } .sCA28B373 { width:22.18pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. February 1994 Bendenoun v. France - 12547/86 Judgment 24.2.1994 Article 6 Article 6-1 Criminal charge Fair hearing Equality of arms Access to a customs file during proceedings in the administrative courts concerning tax surcharges and supplementary tax assessments: Article 6 § 1 applicable; no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Applicability 1.   General aspects of French system of tax surcharges where taxpayer had not acted in good faith: having regard to the large number of offences of the kind referred to in Article 1729 § 1 of the General Tax Code, a Contracting State had to be free to empower the Revenue to prosecute and punish them, even if the surcharges imposed as a penalty were large ones - such a system not incompatible with Article 6 of the Convention so long as taxpayer could bring his case before a court that afforded the safeguards of that provision. 2.   In the instant case, several factors pointing to the administrative nature of the tax penalty were important, but four others predominated which made the "charge" in issue a "criminal" one within the meaning of Article 6 § 1: (a)   offences charged: came under Article 1729 § 1 of the General Tax Code, which covered all citizens in their capacity as taxpayers and not a given group with a particular status, and laid down certain requirements, to which penalties were attached.   (b)   tax surcharges: (i)   were intended not as pecuniary compensation for damage but essentially as a punishment to deter reoffending; (ii)   were imposed under a general rule, whose purpose was both deterrent and punitive; and (iii)   were very substantial in the instant case, and failure to pay rendered taxpayer liable to be committed to prison by the criminal courts. Conclusion : Article 6 § 1 applicable (unanimously). Unnecessary to have regard to the supplementary tax assessments.   - iv B.   Compliance Applicant's allegations: relevant only in so far as the proceedings in the administrative courts related to the merits of the accusation of tax evasion which had given rise to the tax surcharges. The complaint related to documents that were not in the file produced to the administrative courts and were not ones on which the Revenue relied. The Court did not rule out that in such circumstances the concept of a fair trial might nevertheless entail an obligation on the Revenue to agree to supply the litigant with certain documents from the file on him or even with the file in its entirety - however, it was necessary, at the very least, that the person concerned should have given, even if only briefly, specific reasons for his request. In instant case the applicant had not done so, an omission all the more detrimental to his case as he had been aware of the existence and content of most of the documents and he and his counsel had had access to the complete file, at any rate during the criminal investigation - hence no infringement of the rights of the defence or of equality of arms. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 Complaint not reiterated before the Court. Conclusion : unnecessary to examine the issue of the Court's own motion (unanimously.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes