BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Cecchetti v. San Marino - 40174/08 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 477 (09 April 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/477.html Cite as: [2013] ECHR 477 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 162
April 2013
Cecchetti v. San Marino - 40174/08
Decision 9.4.2013 [Section III]
Article 35
Article 35-3-b
No significant disadvantage
Length-of-proceedings complaint concerning insignificant sum of tax: inadmissible
Facts - In 1994 the applicant was ordered to pay EUR 13.91 in tax in respect of an additional amount of undeclared income combined with a penalty of EUR 3.48. He challenged that decision in the courts and the case was ultimately remitted for reconsideration in 2008. The proceedings are apparently still pending.
Law - Article 35 § 3 (b): The applicant complained about the length of proceedings concerning the payment of EUR 13.91 in tax and a penalty of EUR 3.48. Although at times even modest pecuniary damage might be significant in the light of the person’s specific condition and the economic situation of their country or region of residence, it was beyond doubt that the amount at stake in the present case was of minimal significance to the applicant. His subjective perception that it was an important question of principle to ask an international court to assess whether proceedings dealing with the determination of an insignificant sum conformed to the reasonable-time requirement was not enough for the Court to conclude that he had suffered a significant disadvantage. Furthermore, given that the Court had on numerous occasions determined issues analogous to those arising in the applicant’s case and ascertained in great detail the States’ obligations under the Convention in that respect including in cases against the respondent State, there were no compelling reason of public order to warrant an examination on the merits of his case. Finally, the determination of the applicant’s taxable income and the supervening penalty had been the subject of various decisions of the domestic courts, and it could therefore not be concluded that his case had not been “duly considered” by the domestic courts.
Conclusion: inadmissible (no significant disadvantage).
(See also Korolev v. Russia (dec.), no. 25551/05, 1 July 2010, Information Note no. 132)
