Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Betydelsen av ne bis in idem-principen inom EU-rätten för skattebrott och skattetillägg

Noculak Nilsson, Sebastian LU (2013) LAGF03 20131
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Ne bis in idem är en av straffprocessens grundpelare. Principen innebär att en person inte får lagföras eller straffas för samma gärning som denne har blivit frikänd eller dömd i ett tidigare förfarande. Ne bis in idem uttrycker förbudet mot dubbelbestraffning. Detta är en mänsklig rättighet som skyddas genom artikel 4 i sjunde tilläggsprotokollet Europakonventionen samt artikel 50 i EU:s rättighetsstadga.

Det har sedan länge diskuterats huruvida dubbelbestraffning föreligger i fråga om skattetillägg och skattebrott. Bakgrunden är att skattetillägg tas ut om en skattskyldig person lämnar en oriktig uppgift vid dennes självdeklaration. Efter påförandet kan den skattskyldiga personen åtalas och ställas till svars för samma oriktiga... (More)
Ne bis in idem är en av straffprocessens grundpelare. Principen innebär att en person inte får lagföras eller straffas för samma gärning som denne har blivit frikänd eller dömd i ett tidigare förfarande. Ne bis in idem uttrycker förbudet mot dubbelbestraffning. Detta är en mänsklig rättighet som skyddas genom artikel 4 i sjunde tilläggsprotokollet Europakonventionen samt artikel 50 i EU:s rättighetsstadga.

Det har sedan länge diskuterats huruvida dubbelbestraffning föreligger i fråga om skattetillägg och skattebrott. Bakgrunden är att skattetillägg tas ut om en skattskyldig person lämnar en oriktig uppgift vid dennes självdeklaration. Efter påförandet kan den skattskyldiga personen åtalas och ställas till svars för samma oriktiga uppgiftslämnande.

Rättsläget inom dubbelbestraffningen har präglats av Europadomstolens och HD:s praxis. År 2009 kom rättsfallet Zolotukhin mot Ryssland från Europadomstolen. Europadomstolen ville klargöra rättsläget angående dubbelbestraffning eftersom tidig praxis hade varit otydlig och motsägelsefull. Domstolen stannar nu vid en linje som säger att förbudet mot att lagföras eller straffas på nytt för samma gärning slår till så snart det nya brottet rör förhållanden som är identiska eller i allt väsentligt liknande som det tidigare förfarande. HD och HFD har funnit att det svenska systemet är förenligt med Europakonventionen. Genom NJA 2010 s. 168 I och II anger HD tydligt att det krävs klart stöd i Europakonventionen och Europadomstolens praxis för att underkänna den svenska ordningen med skattetillägg och skattebrott. Klart stöd finns inte enligt HD.

HD:s dom har kritiserats och vissa underinstanser har valt att inte dela HD:s synsätt i frågan och har dömt mot gällande praxis. År 2010 begärde Haparanda tingsrätt ett förhandsavgörande av EU-domstolen i frågan om dubbelbestraffnings inom området skattetillägg och skattebrott. EU-domstolen svarar att förbudet mot dubbelbestraffning inte hindrar en medlemsstat från att, för samma gärning som den nu aktuella, tillämpa en kombination av skatterättsliga och straffrättsliga sanktioner. Domstolen skriver dock att det är först när ett skattetillägg har straffrättslig karaktär och vunnit laga kraft som dubbelbestraffningsförbudet i artikel 50 hindrar att en och samma person lagförs för samma gärning. Det är den nationella domstolen som ska avgöra, med hjälp av kriterier som EU-domstolen har ställt upp, huruvida skattetillägget är av straffrättslig karaktär

För frågan om klart stöd finner EU-domstolen att unionsrätten innebär ett hinder mot att oförenligheten ska ha klart stöd eftersom det förvägrar den nationella domstolen möjligheten att göra en fullständig bedömning.

HD beslutade den 19 mars 2013 att frågan om dubbelbestraffning ska tas upp i plenum angående ett annat mål. När ett mål avgörs i plenum finns det möjlighet att ändra tidigare praxis. (Less)
Abstract
Ne bis in idem is one of pillars on which the criminal procedure system rests. This means that a person may not be punished nor have legal proceedings taken against him/her if they have previously been freed or found guilty of the crime. Ne bis in idem expresses the will to prevent dual liability. This is a human right supported by article 4 in the seventh protocol amendment of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms, and article 50 in the European Union’s Statute on Human Rights.

The relationship between dual liability, tax surcharge and tax offence is an ongoing discussion. The circumstances that led up to this were that a surcharge on tax is charged if a person provides false information on their tax return.... (More)
Ne bis in idem is one of pillars on which the criminal procedure system rests. This means that a person may not be punished nor have legal proceedings taken against him/her if they have previously been freed or found guilty of the crime. Ne bis in idem expresses the will to prevent dual liability. This is a human right supported by article 4 in the seventh protocol amendment of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms, and article 50 in the European Union’s Statute on Human Rights.

The relationship between dual liability, tax surcharge and tax offence is an ongoing discussion. The circumstances that led up to this were that a surcharge on tax is charged if a person provides false information on their tax return. After this extra tax is charged the tax offender is prosecuted and made to account for the same erroneous information.

The legal position for dual liability has been strongly influenced by the established practice of the European Court of Human rights and the Supreme Court. In the case of Zolotukhin v. Russia, 2009, the European Court wished to clarify the legal standpoint on dual liability, as earlier established practice had been vague and contradictory. The court’s position now is that it is prohibited to take legal proceedings or be punished a second time for a crime based on circumstances that are identical or very similar to previous proceedings. The Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court find the Swedish system to be in accordance with the European Convention. By way of NJA 2010 page 168, I and II, the Supreme Court states clearly that clear support is required in the praxes of the European Convention and the European Court in order to reject the Swedish regulations concerning tax surcharge and tax offence. There is no clear support according to the Supreme Court.

The ruling of the Supreme Court has been criticized and certain subordinate authorities do not share the views of the Supreme Court and have not ruled according to the current established practice. In the middle of 2010 Haparanda District Court requested an preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning dual liability in a case of tax surcharge and tax offence. The response of the Court of Justice of the European Union was that even if dual liability is forbidden, it does not prevent a member state in cases as this one, from applying a combination of judicial tax and punishment sanctions. However the Court stated that it is only when a tax surcharge intended as a punishment comes into legal force that the dual liability ban according to article 50 can prevent proceedings being brought against a person for the same offence. It is up to the national court to decide, supported by the criteria set up by the Court of Justice of the European Union, whether or not the tax surcharge is to be regarded as a punishment.

As to the question of clear support, the Court of Justice of the European Union considers the EU-law would make it difficult for the incompatibility to get clear support, as it would deny the national court the possibility of making a complete judgment.

The Supreme Court decided on 19 March 2013 that the question of dual liability is to be raised at a plenary hearing in another case. When a case is settled in plenary it may be possible to change an earlier praxis. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Noculak Nilsson, Sebastian LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20131
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Skattetillägg Dubbelbestraffning Ne bis in idem Skattebrott
language
Swedish
id
3800802
date added to LUP
2013-09-11 14:26:13
date last changed
2013-09-11 14:26:13
@misc{3800802,
  abstract     = {Ne bis in idem is one of pillars on which the criminal procedure system rests. This means that a person may not be punished nor have legal proceedings taken against him/her if they have previously been freed or found guilty of the crime. Ne bis in idem expresses the will to prevent dual liability. This is a human right supported by article 4 in the seventh protocol amendment of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms, and article 50 in the European Union’s Statute on Human Rights.

The relationship between dual liability, tax surcharge and tax offence is an ongoing discussion. The circumstances that led up to this were that a surcharge on tax is charged if a person provides false information on their tax return. After this extra tax is charged the tax offender is prosecuted and made to account for the same erroneous information.

The legal position for dual liability has been strongly influenced by the established practice of the European Court of Human rights and the Supreme Court. In the case of Zolotukhin v. Russia, 2009, the European Court wished to clarify the legal standpoint on dual liability, as earlier established practice had been vague and contradictory. The court’s position now is that it is prohibited to take legal proceedings or be punished a second time for a crime based on circumstances that are identical or very similar to previous proceedings. The Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court find the Swedish system to be in accordance with the European Convention. By way of NJA 2010 page 168, I and II, the Supreme Court states clearly that clear support is required in the praxes of the European Convention and the European Court in order to reject the Swedish regulations concerning tax surcharge and tax offence. There is no clear support according to the Supreme Court.

The ruling of the Supreme Court has been criticized and certain subordinate authorities do not share the views of the Supreme Court and have not ruled according to the current established practice. In the middle of 2010 Haparanda District Court requested an preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning dual liability in a case of tax surcharge and tax offence. The response of the Court of Justice of the European Union was that even if dual liability is forbidden, it does not prevent a member state in cases as this one, from applying a combination of judicial tax and punishment sanctions. However the Court stated that it is only when a tax surcharge intended as a punishment comes into legal force that the dual liability ban according to article 50 can prevent proceedings being brought against a person for the same offence. It is up to the national court to decide, supported by the criteria set up by the Court of Justice of the European Union, whether or not the tax surcharge is to be regarded as a punishment.

As to the question of clear support, the Court of Justice of the European Union considers the EU-law would make it difficult for the incompatibility to get clear support, as it would deny the national court the possibility of making a complete judgment.

The Supreme Court decided on 19 March 2013 that the question of dual liability is to be raised at a plenary hearing in another case. When a case is settled in plenary it may be possible to change an earlier praxis.},
  author       = {Noculak Nilsson, Sebastian},
  keyword      = {Skattetillägg Dubbelbestraffning Ne bis in idem Skattebrott},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Betydelsen av ne bis in idem-principen inom EU-rätten för skattebrott och skattetillägg},
  year         = {2013},
}