EIT:sta tulossa suomalaistuomioita ne bis in idem -kiellosta

Euroopan ihmisoikeustuomioistuin antaa 20.5. neljä tuomiota suomalaisesta verotus- ja rikosprosessista. Kaikissa tapauksissa on pääsääntöisesti kyse siitä, että valittajille on määrätty hallinnolliseksi katsottuja veronkorotuksia ja heidät on sittemmin tuomittu veropetoksista.

EIT:n lehdistötiedotteesta:

The applicants in these cases are four Finnish nationals who were born between 1952 and 1972 and live in Finland. All cases concern the applicants’ complaints of having been punished twice for the same offence after tax surcharges had been imposed on them and they had subsequently also been convicted of tax fraud or aggravated tax fraud.

Following an inspection, the tax authorities considered that the applicants had received disguised dividends from companies they owned or in which they held shares. Additional taxes and tax surcharges were imposed on the applicants. In Mr Pirttimäki’s case, additional taxes and tax surcharges were also imposed on the company in which he held shares. The tax authorities’ decisions became final between 2009 and 2011, respectively.

In the first three cases, criminal proceedings were brought against the applicants on charges of, among other offences, aggravated tax fraud or tax fraud, concerning partly or entirely the same tax years for which they had been charged additional taxes and tax surcharges. They were convicted as charged and sentenced to imprisonment between ten months, and two years and eight months, respectively. The courts also ordered them to pay taxes for the disguised dividends. The judgments were upheld on appeal and became final in 2010 and 2011.

In the last case, Mr Pirttimäki was charged, on the company’s count, of an accounting offence, for having introduced incorrect and misleading information in the company’s bookkeeping, and of aggravated tax fraud. He was convicted as charged in September 2009 and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment, which the court suspended having regard to the length of the criminal proceedings, which had lasted for more than seven years. The conviction was upheld on appeal in December 2010.

All four applicants rely in particular on Article 4 of Protocol No.7 (right not to be tried or punished twice), complaining that they were charged and convicted of the same acts which had already been subject to taxation proceedings in which tax surcharges had been imposed in final decisions. Mr Glantz and Mr Pirttimäki further rely on Article 6 (right to a fair trial), complaining of not having had a fair trial and of the length of the criminal proceedings, respectively.