32. The Court considers that the applicant raised two issues that require a separate examination: (i) the breach of legal certainty on account of the disparity between his judgment of 19 June 2017 and his siblings’ judgments of 28 September 2017, and (ii) the lack of reasoning by the Audiencia Nacional with respect to his submission concerning the ancillary nature of the surcharge and interest. The Court will analyse those issues consecutively.
i) On divergent judgments in his case and his siblings’ cases
33. The Court notes that the parties did not dispute the fact that the applicant’s siblings, despite being in identical or similar situations to the applicant, obtained favourable judgments from the Audiencia Nacional, in contrast to the outcome in the applicant’s case. The two judgments in the applicant’s siblings’ cases were delivered within a short period of time aftert he judgment in the applicant’s case.
34. While that divergence is a matter of concern for those involved, as already noted above, the possibility of conflicting court decisions is an inherent trait of any judicial system and cannot in itself be considered in breach of the Convention (see Svilengaćanin and Others v. Serbia,nos. 50104/10 and 9 others, § 80, 12 January 2021).
35. In the present case, the Court observes that the alleged divergencea ffected the applicant’s appeal as compared to the ones lodged by his siblings.
The judgment on the applicant’s appeal had been adopted two months earlier than the judgment on his siblings’ appeals. The applicant did not submit that the divergence on that specific issue went against a well-established case-law on which he could have reasonably relied to expect a specific outcome of his
appeal and even less that such divergence extended over any longer period than between the judgment in his case and the judgments in his siblings’cases, and he did not provide any further examples of judgments in whichsuch a divergence might have taken place, either before the judgment in his case of 19 June 2017 or after. In sum, the only element that could raise the issue of legal certainty is the divergent outcomes in the interpretation of aspecific point of law in parallel proceedings of the applicant’s siblings, who had been subject to similar tax claims (compare to Borg v. Malta, no. 37537/13, §§ 110-11, 12 January 2016).
36. Given these circumstances, and bearing in mind that it is not its function to compare different decisions delivered by national courts, th eCourt concludes that there were no “profound and long-standing differences”in the relevant case-law and no breach of the principle of legal certainty to an extent incompatible with the guarantees of Article 6 § 1.
37. Accordingly, there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of theConvention on this account.
(ii) On the reasoning of the Audiencia Nacional
38. In respect of the reasoning of the Audiencia Nacional in the applicant’s case, the Court observes that, on 8 September 2016, the TEAC declared the applicant’s payment of the main debt null and void. On the basis of that decision, the applicant submitted his pleadings before the Audiencia Nacional on 2 February 2017, arguing, among other things that, as the surcharge and interest were ancillary to the main debt, they should equally be declared null and void.
39. The Audiencia Nacional, in its judgment of 19 June 2017, addressed the same issues the administrative bodies had dealt with previously, but did not provide any reasoning concerning the applicant’s new argument that derived from the annulment of the main debt. In this respect, the judgment included the phrase “the allegations made at this time should have been madeat the time when the tax was demanded ...”. However, the Audiencia Nacional failed to explain why despite the fact that the surcharge and interest were considered ancillary under section 25 of the General Tax Act, the enforcement proceedings concerning the surcharge and interest could be pursued even in the absence of a valid enforcement title for the main debt, as declared in the TEAC’s decision of 8 September 2016 (see paragraph 11above).
40. The Court further observes that, when the applicant lodged the application for annulment with the Audiencia Nacional, he complained of the lack of a reply to his submission concerning the ancillary nature of the surcharge and interest in the judgment of 19 June 2017. The AudienciaNacional, in its decision of 3 April 2018, did not expressly respond to that particular submission made by the applicant.
41. As stated above, the obligation to give reasons does not require a detailed answer to every argument advanced by the complainant, but only aspecific and explicit reply to the arguments which are decisive for the outcome of those proceedings. In the present case, the applicant’s argument concerning the ancillary nature of the surcharge and interest was potentially decisive for the outcome of the case, as shown by the judgments of2 8 September 2017 in the applicant’s siblings’ cases, which allowed their appeals precisely on the basis of that specific argument.
42. It is not the Court’s task to determine whether the applicant’s claimsshould have been allowed or not. It is not even its task to examine whether his submissions were well‑founded. However, it is not necessary for the Court to conduct such an examination in order to conclude that the applicant’ssubmission concerning the ancillary nature of the surcharge and interest was in any event relevant and, as noted above, potentially decisive for the outcome of the case. It therefore required a specific and express reply, which the domestic courts did not provide. In such circumstances, it is impossible to ascertain whether the Audiencia Nacional failed to examine the applicant’ssubmission at all, or whether it assessed and dismissed it and, if so, what were the reasons for so deciding (see, mutatis mutandis, Farzaliyev v. Azerbaijan,no. 29620/07, § 39, 28 May 2020).
43. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court toconclude that the applicant’s right to a reasoned judgment has been breached.
44. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of theConvention on this account.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
45. Article 41 of the Convention provides:“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocolsthereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows onlypartial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction totheinjured party.”
A. Damage
46. The applicant submitted no claim in respect of pecuniary or non pecuniarydamage.
47. The Court therefore does not award any sum under this head.
48. On the other hand, the Court has consistently held that where, as inthe instant case, an individual has been the victim of proceedings that haveentailed breaches of the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention, the mostappropriate form of redress would, in principle, be a retrial or the reopening of the case, at the request of the interested person (see, among otherauthorities, Gençel v. Turkey, no. 53431/99, § 27, 23 October 2003). In this connection, it notes that paragraph 2 of section 102 of the Spanish Administrative Procedure Act, as amended by Organic Law no. 7/2015 of21 July 2015, provides for the possibility of revision of a final decision where it has been determined in a ruling of the Court that there has been a violation of the Convention or one of the Protocols thereto.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention admissible;
2. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Conventionas regards the complaint about a breach of the principle of legal certainty;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention asregards the complaint about insufficiently reasoned judgment of theAudiencia Nacional;
4. Dismisses the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 14 December 2021, pursuantto Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
No comments:
Post a Comment