Agnieszka Leszczyńska-Rydlewska
The limits of state’s interference with taxpayer’s property in the light of the European Convention on Human Rights
Summary
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, also known as the European Convention on Human Rights, is one of the most significant instruments of the international protection of human rights. It was adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe in 1950 and came into force in 1953.
The increasing importance of state’s activity leads to a proliferation of tax legislation. Tax regulations become more and more complex which makes the taxpayer’s situation uncertain. This is only one of many reasons why the idea of taxpayer protection is so popular.
It must be noted that neither the Convention nor the additional protocols refer directly to taxpayers’ rights. However, the meaning and scope of applicability of certain provisions of the Convention and its additional protocols is elucidated by the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg organs. Thus, there are verdicts of the European Court of Human Rights and decisions of the former European Commission of Human Rights that constitute a quite established approach as to the possibility of applying selected provisions of the ECHR. Protection of property is provided for by Art. 1 of the 1st Protocol.
It is self-evident that all taxation leads to the interference with the right of enjoyment of possessions what prima facie makes the protection of property the most relevant item for taxpayers. Nevertheless, applications alleging infringement of the right of possessions have very rarely been successful. In most cases the Strasbourg organs found a justification for this interference, pointing out that it fulfils the requirements of general interest.
Taxpayer’s rights aren’t absolute and may be restricted under certain circumstances. The aim of this publication is to present the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights and the former European Commission of Human Rights in tax cases based on Art. 1 of the 1st Protocol in order to set forth the permissible limits of state’s interference with taxpayer’s property.
The increasing importance of state’s activity leads to a proliferation of tax legislation. Tax regulations become more and more complex which makes the taxpayer’s situation uncertain. This is only one of many reasons why the idea of taxpayer protection is so popular.
It must be noted that neither the Convention nor the additional protocols refer directly to taxpayers’ rights. However, the meaning and scope of applicability of certain provisions of the Convention and its additional protocols is elucidated by the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg organs. Thus, there are verdicts of the European Court of Human Rights and decisions of the former European Commission of Human Rights that constitute a quite established approach as to the possibility of applying selected provisions of the ECHR. Protection of property is provided for by Art. 1 of the 1st Protocol.
It is self-evident that all taxation leads to the interference with the right of enjoyment of possessions what prima facie makes the protection of property the most relevant item for taxpayers. Nevertheless, applications alleging infringement of the right of possessions have very rarely been successful. In most cases the Strasbourg organs found a justification for this interference, pointing out that it fulfils the requirements of general interest.
Taxpayer’s rights aren’t absolute and may be restricted under certain circumstances. The aim of this publication is to present the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights and the former European Commission of Human Rights in tax cases based on Art. 1 of the 1st Protocol in order to set forth the permissible limits of state’s interference with taxpayer’s property.