The thesis addresses the challenge to compare both the CJEU and the ECtHR case-laws dealing with issues concerning the taxpayers' procedural rights. Those courts faced the same difficulty to guarantee the European taxpayers' rights while neither the EU Founding Treaties, nor the European Convention on Human Rights include stipulations with sheer fiscal purpose. However, despite that apparent mutism, the Convention and EU law turn out today to be fundamental sources in the field of taxation. Similarly to the CJEU, who impelled the Member States to direct taxation "downward harmonisation", the ECtHR set up a constructive case-law, which unveiled fiscal perspectives over stipulations that have not been conceived originally under such conception. The thesis is focused on the contributions both European courts delivered in the field of taxpayers' procedural safeguards and investigates into the existence of a common corpus: all taxation phases are thus covered, regardless of whether it is in the stage of tax base assessment, tax liquidation or tax collection, but as well and mostly so regarding the administrative oversight and prospective sanctions that could result from. The thesis overpasses its initial scope in order to examine legal tools and reasoning patterns European justices in both courts have put in place in order to give rise to taxpayers' real procedural safeguards.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
FIRST PART: TAX PROCEDURAL RULES IN THE EUROPEAN CASE-LAW
TITLE I: TAX PROCEDURAL RULES IN THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CASE-LAW
CHAPTER 1: Guidance over National Tax Procedures
Section 1. Application of the EU Charter on Tax Procedures
Subsection 1. A Right for each Taxpayer to an Effective Remedy before an Impartial Tribunal
Subsection 2. The Charter, Taxpayers and the Right not to Be Punished Twice for the Same Offence
Subsection 3. Principles of Legality and Proportionality of Criminal Offences and Penalties and Article 49
Section 2. Guidance by the CJEU over Tax Procedures
Subsection 1. Guidance over the Tax Procedural Autonomy
A. Guidance over Actions for Recovery of Sums Paid but not Due
B. Guidance over the Liability of Tax Authorities
Subsection 2. Key Limits on the Guidance over Tax Procedures
CHAPTER 2: Typology of the Control over Tax Procedures under EU Law
Section 1. Direct Control in Absence of Procedural Autonomy
Subsection 1. Cases of Direct Control on Tax Procedures
A. Direct Control through Implementation of Primary EU Law
B. Direct Control through Implementation of Secondary EU Law
Subsection 2. Limits on the Exercised Control
Section 2. Direct and Indirect Control through the Procedural Autonomy
Subsection 1. Indirect Control Exercised through the Procedural Autonomy
Subsection 2. Direct Control Exercised through the Procedural Autonomy
TITLE II: TAX PROCEDURAL RULES IN THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS CASE-LAW
CHAPTER 1: Broadened Margin of Appreciation in Tax Matters
Section 1. Extensive Conception of Margin of Appreciation in Tax Matters
Section 2. Implications of Such an Extensive Conception of Margin of Appreciation for the Strasbourg Court Case-Law
Subsection 1. Procedural Margin of Appreciation
Subsection 2. Guidance over the Procedural Margin of Appreciation
A. Principle of Effective Protection
B. Principle of Proportionality
CHAPTER 2: Effective Control by the ECtHR over Tax Procedures
Section 1. Applicability of the Convention in Procedural Tax Matters
Subsection 1. Safeguards with Crucial Impact on Tax Procedures
A. Protection of Property and Article 1 of the First Protocol
1. Reasonable Time Requirement in Tax Litigations
2. Actions for Recovery of Sums Paid but not Due
3. Procedures for Collection of Fiscal Debts
4. Right of VAT Deduction and Protection of the Right of Property
5. Tax Law Retrospectivity
B. Right to a Fair Trial and Article 6
1. Tax Procedures’ Civil Dimension
a. The Application for Compensation – a Fiscal Right of a Civil Nature
b. Actions for Recovery of Unduly Paid Sums
c. Enforcement Proceedings Relating to Fiscal Debts
2. Tax Procedures’ Criminal Dimension
a. Cases Based on Application of Article 6 According to the Pleas
b. Limits on the applicability of Article 6
Subsection 2. Purely Criminal Safeguards and Existing Sui Generis Cases
A. Effects of the Right to Liberty and Security for Taxpayers
B. Effects of the Principle of the Legality of Penalties for Taxpayers
C. Taxpayers’ Right not to be Tried or Punished Twice and Article 4 of Protocol n° 7
D. Existing Sui Generis Cases
1. Limitation on the Freedom of Movement Due to Tax Debts
2. Representation of Taxpayers in Legal Proceedings before Tax Courts
3. Atypical Cases
Section 2. Typology of the Control under the ECHR over Tax Procedures
Subsection 1. Intensity of the Control over the Different Stages of Tax Proceedings
A. Control over Proceedings at the Administrative Phase
B. Control over Proceedings at the Level of Tax Tribunals
Subsection 2. Convention Control Faced with the Margin of Appreciation
A. Direct Control on the Margin of Appreciation
B. Direct Control Regardless of the Margin of Appreciation
CONCLUSION OF THE FIRTS PART
SECOND PART: TAXPAYERS’ PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS AND SUBSTANTIVE SAFEGUARDS WITH PROCEDURAL IMPACT BEFORE THE TWO COURTS
TITLE I: TAXPAYERS’ SAFEGUARDS INHERENT IN THE EFFECTIVE JUDICIAL PROTECTION
CHAPTER 1: Safeguards of the Right to a Fair Trial in a Strict Sense
Section 1. Tax Safeguards with Objective Effects
Subsection 1. The Absolute Requirement for Independence and Impartiality of Tax Justices
Subsection 2. Evidence in Tax Proceedings
A. Evidence in tax proceedings under the Convention
1. Taxpayers entitled to the right to presumption of innocence and enjoying the rules on the burden of proof
2. Taxpayers entitled to the right to equality of arms and enjoying the rules on the burden of proof
B. Evidence in tax proceedings in the light of Union law
Section 2. Tax Safeguards with Subjective Effects
Subsection 1. Taxpayers’ Right of Access to a Tax Tribunal
A. The “tribunal” in the fair trial – a unified notion
B. The right to a public hearing – a safeguard of limited scope in tax law
C. Duty for the tax tribunal to state reasons for its judicial decisions
D. Tax tribunals’ power – an indispensable competence of full jurisdiction
E. The adversarial principle in tax litigations – an absolute requirement
Subsection 2. Taxpayers’ Right to Legal Assistance
CHAPTER 2: Safeguards of the Right to a Fair Trial in a Broad Sense
Section 1. Reasonable Time of Taxation Proceedings – an Objective Requirement
Section 2. Subjective Effects of the Fair Trial in the Broad Sense
Subsection 1. Judicial Control at Administrative Phase
Subsection 2. Taxpayers’ Privilege against Self-Incrimination
TITLE II: PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND SUBSTANTIVE SAFEGUARDS WITH PROCEDURAL IMPACT IN TAX MATTERS
CHAPTER 1: Procedural Safeguards in Tax-Related Criminal Proceedings
Section 1. Duplication of Penal and Fiscal Sanctions – an Old Issue of Continuous Relevance
Section 2. The Right to Liberty and Security and the Principle of no Punishment without Law in Tax Repression
Subsection 1. The Taxpayers’ Right to Liberty and Security Effectively Guaranteed
Subsection 2. An Absolute Requirement for Fiscal Repression – no Punishment Without Law
CHAPTER 2: Substantive Safeguards with Procedural Impact in Tax Matters
Section 1. Taxpayers’ Private and Family Life: A Crossable Boundary under Strict Judicial Control
Subsection 1. The Taxpayers’ Right to Respect for the Home
Subsection 2. The Taxpayers’ Right to Respect for Communications
Section 2. The Right of Property and its Increasing Impact upon Tax Proceedings
Subsection 1. The Property – a Systematic “Hostage” of the Tax Proceedings
Subsection 2. Tax Proceedings – a Widely Justified Interference of Principle with the Property
GENERAL CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Objectives and Topics
This doctoral thesis aims to compare the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) regarding procedural safeguards for taxpayers. The core research question addresses whether a common European corpus of procedural rights exists for taxpayers, despite the Founding Treaties of the EU and the European Convention on Human Rights lacking explicit fiscal provisions.
- The analytical comparison of how both European courts have developed constructive case-law to protect taxpayers' rights.
- The investigation into procedural safeguards during all stages of taxation: assessment, liquidation, collection, oversight, and sanctions.
- The scope of judicial control, including the principles of "procedural autonomy" in EU law and the "margin of appreciation" in ECHR case-law.
- The specific analysis of the "right to a fair trial," the "ne bis in idem" principle, and protection of "private and family life" and "property" in tax matters.
- The examination of how procedural impacts emerge from rights of a clear substantive nature.
Excerpt from the Book
INTRODUCTION
The geometrical form able to represent all aspects of the present study appears to be a heptagon. At the centre lie tax procedures in the framework of which come to fruition relationships between fiscal authorities and taxpayers about taxes, seen through the rights and obligations they imply. The force of taxes attracts around itself relationships between States and taxpayers, those between the same taxpayers and the two European courts, as well as interactions between States and those Courts. The procedural safeguards in tax matters are a central object of the aforementioned relationships. The expression “procedural safeguard” is to be perceived as any procedural right or any principle with procedural impact able to protect taxpayers’ fiscal interests so that namely to secure them against whatever kind of infringement a public authority’s actions could give rise to. At the same time, it could be observed in the two European courts’ case-law a certain procedural impact produced by rights of a clear substantive nature invoked before the judges. In line with that, beside procedural safeguards such as the right to an effective remedy, the right to a fair trial, the ne bis in idem and no punishment without law principles, it has to be also taken account of the procedural impact produced by the right to respect for private and family life and the right to respect of property. Those last two rights, despite being substantive in nature, produce as well effects on tax procedures and hence reinforce furthermore taxpayers’ protection. Therefore, it is a question of a peculiar subject whose multidisciplinary essence does not allow a concentrated and concise delimitation.
Summary of Chapters
INTRODUCTION: Establishes a heptagonal conceptual framework for the study, defining "procedural safeguards" as both explicit procedural rights and substantive rights with procedural impact on tax matters.
FIRST PART: Tax Procedural Rules in the European Case-Law: Compares the jurisprudential methods of the CJEU and ECtHR, focusing on "guidance" tools like procedural autonomy and the margin of appreciation.
SECOND PART: Taxpayers’ Procedural Safeguards and Substantive Safeguards with Procedural Impact before the Two Courts: Investigates specific safeguards like the right to an effective remedy, fair trial, and procedural impacts of rights regarding privacy and property.
Keywords
European Tax Law, Taxpayers' Rights, Procedural Safeguards, CJEU, ECtHR, Tax Procedures, Procedural Autonomy, Margin of Appreciation, Effective Judicial Protection, Fair Trial, Property Rights, Fiscal Sovereignty, Fundamental Rights, Taxation, European Convention on Human Rights.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this thesis?
The work provides a comparative analysis of the case-law of the CJEU and the ECtHR regarding the procedural protection of European taxpayers, exploring how these supranational courts reconcile national tax sovereignty with European fundamental rights.
What are the central themes discussed?
The study centers on procedural rules in taxation, examining the concepts of "procedural autonomy" and "margin of appreciation," along with fundamental procedural guarantees like the right to a fair trial and effective judicial protection.
What is the primary research goal?
The primary goal is to investigate whether a common European corpus of procedural safeguards for taxpayers exists across both the EU and the ECHR legal orders, and to analyze the legal reasoning used by the courts to construct these safeguards.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The research uses a comparative legal approach, analyzing the dialectic interplay between European economic freedoms and national tax sovereignty, while observing the dynamic interaction and judicial dialogues between the CJEU and the ECtHR.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The work is split into two major parts: the first examines tax procedural rules in European case-law (focusing on guidance and control), and the second investigates specific taxpayers' procedural and substantive safeguards with procedural impact, such as fair trial rights, privacy, and property protection.
What are the defining keywords of the work?
The work is characterized by terms such as Procedural Safeguards, Taxpayers' Rights, Procedural Autonomy, Margin of Appreciation, Effective Judicial Protection, and European Tax Law.
How does the thesis handle the relation between tax sovereignty and EU law?
It analyzes the tension through the lens of the "procedural autonomy" principle, demonstrating that while Member States retain fiscal sovereignty, this autonomy is constrained by the duty to comply with requirements for the uniform and effective application of EU law.
In what way does the thesis address the "ne bis in idem" principle?
The work addresses the principle as a central, sensitive issue in the judicial dialogue between the courts, scrutinizing the duplication of administrative and criminal tax sanctions and the necessity of proportionality in such measures.
- Quote paper
- Lyubomir Antonov (Author), 2023, The Contributions of the CJEU and the ECtHR in the Field of Taxpayers' Procedural Safeguards, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1365236
