CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 février 1995

.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 } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; 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 1995 Gasus Dosier- und Fördertechnik GmbH v. the Netherlands - 15375/89 Judgment 23.2.1995 Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Possessions Seizure and sale of machine to which foreign vendor claims title for the recovery of tax debt owed by purchaser: 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.   GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION (FAILURE TO EXHAUST DOMESTIC REMEDIES) Although in the domestic proceedings the applicant company expressly denied that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 was applicable and argued it before the Supreme Court only in an alternative submission, in the event the domestic courts were able to deal with the allegation of a violation of that provision and in fact did so. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). II.   ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL NO. 1 A.   Whether there was an interference with the applicant company's "peaceful enjoyment of [their] possessions" Notion "possessions" has an autonomous meaning not limited to ownership of physical goods — immaterial whether retention of title is to be considered as a right of ownership or a security right in rem. B.   The applicable rule Seizure in the exercise of powers under section 16(3) of the 1845 Tax Collection Act — most natural approach is to examine complaints under head of "securing the payment of taxes" (second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1). C.   Compliance with the conditions laid down in the second paragraph In passing procedural tax laws the legislature must have a wide margin of appreciation — purpose of provision is to facilitate the enforcement of tax debts, which in itself is clearly in the general interest — restrictions imposed by guidelines do not affect essential aim of the law in question. Grant to tax authorities of power to recover tax debts against goods owned by certain third parties does not in itself prompt conclusion that fair balance has not been achieved — immaterial that applicant company were German — State may differentiate between retention of title and other forms of ownership — fact that applicant company's claim against purchaser was rendered worthless was consequence of action taken by tax authorities — applicant company were engaged in commercial venture, had sought to limit their risk and could have limited it altogether — unnecessary for Court to establish whether applicant company could have ascertained existence and extent of purchaser's tax debt — immaterial that applicant company bore no responsibility for tax debt — vendors reserving title might well be held responsible for allowing purchaser to present semblance of creditworthiness — tax authorities have not same possibilities as commercial creditors to protect themselves — fact that goods subject to fiduciary ownership rights of other creditor were spared does not suffice to demonstrate that seizure of machine was arbitrary — procedure available which meets the requirements of Article   6   §   1 of the Convention — requirement of proportionality was satisfied. Conclusion : no violation (six votes to three).   © 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