Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Ne bis in idem vid skattebrott och skattetillägg

Holmström, Hanna LU (2013) LAGF03 20132
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Sammanfattning
Principen ne bis in idem är en grundläggande rättsstatsprincip som innebär ett förbud mot att straffas två gånger för samma brott. Principen kommer till uttryck i så väl intern svensk rätt som i internationella instrument som Sverige har anslutit sig till.
Under de senaste åren har det förts en livlig diskussion kring det svenska systemet med skattebrott och skattetillägg och dess förenlighet med principen. Från svenskt håll har man inte ansett det strida mot varken EU-rätten eller EKMR att påföra en person som tidigare straffats för skattebrott ett skattetillägg. Detta synsätt har tidigare även bekräftats av Europadomstolen i fallet Rosenquist mot Sverige. Genom senare praxis har dock innebörden av principen så som den... (More)
Sammanfattning
Principen ne bis in idem är en grundläggande rättsstatsprincip som innebär ett förbud mot att straffas två gånger för samma brott. Principen kommer till uttryck i så väl intern svensk rätt som i internationella instrument som Sverige har anslutit sig till.
Under de senaste åren har det förts en livlig diskussion kring det svenska systemet med skattebrott och skattetillägg och dess förenlighet med principen. Från svenskt håll har man inte ansett det strida mot varken EU-rätten eller EKMR att påföra en person som tidigare straffats för skattebrott ett skattetillägg. Detta synsätt har tidigare även bekräftats av Europadomstolen i fallet Rosenquist mot Sverige. Genom senare praxis har dock innebörden av principen så som den kommer till uttryck i art. 4 i tilläggsprotokoll 7 ändrats. I fallet Zolotukhin mot Ryssland uttryckte Europadomstolen att principen innebär ett förbud mot dubbla förfarande om det andra förfarandet härrör från identiska fakta eller från fakta som i allt väsentligt är desamma beträffande det första brottet. Med utgångspunkt i denna nya praxis har många röster höjts som menar att det svenska systemet inte längre kan upprätthållas. Detta höll dock tidigare varken Högsta domstolen eller Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen med om, då man även efter domen från Europadomstolen fortsatte döma personer för skattebrott trots att de tidigare påförts skattetillägg.
Problematiken gick så långt att flera underrätter valde att inte följa de högsta instansernas praxis utan dömde tvärt emot. Till slut valde Haparanda tingsrätt att begära ett förhandsavgörande från EU-domstolen i syfte att råda klarhet i systemets förenlighet med EU-rätten. EU-domstolen meddelade i fallet Åkerberg/Fransson att det strider mot principen ne bis in idem att tillämpa skilda förfaranden med straff för skattebrott och skattetillägg förutsatt att skattetillägg är av straffrättslig karaktär. Efter domen fanns det inte längre något utrymme att i skilda förfaranden påföra en person dubbla sanktioner för samma gärning, någonting som senare även har bekräftats av både Högsta domstolen och Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen.
Slutligen har man alltså från svenskt håll förstått att man med hänsyn till sina internationella åtaganden inte längre kan upprätthålla systemet med dubbla förfaranden för skattebrott och skattetillägg. Genom en utredning som tillsattes för att se över problematiken har nu ett nytt lagförslag lagts fram som i korthet innebär ett samordnat förfarande mellan dom för skattebrott och skattetillägg. En person ska alltså enligt förslaget fortsättningsvis kunna påföras båda sanktionerna, men skillnaden ligger i att båda sanktionerna påförs i ett och samma förfarande i allmän domstol.
Framställningen innefattar till en början en redogörelse för den utveckling som har skett kring problematiken med dubbla sanktioner för skattebrott och skattetillägg. Avslutningsvis diskuteras och analyseras denna utveckling samt det lagförslag som nu presenterats som lösning på problemet samt vilka alternativa lösningar som eventuellt bör ses över. Min slutsats är att den redovisade utredningen inte är den bästa lösningen på problemet. Istället anser jag att man bör se över ett vägvalssystem noggrannare innan man avfärdar detta. (Less)
Abstract
Summary
The principle ne bis in idem is a fundamental right that protects individuals from being punished or tried twice for the same offence. The principle is expressed in both Swedish internal law and in several international instruments Sweden has chosen to join.
Throughout the last couple of years there has been an intense discussion whether the Swedish system with punishment for tax offence and tax surcharges is compatible with the principle. Internally, Sweden has not considered it to be incompatible with neither EU-right nor the European Convention on Human Rights to prosecute someone for tax offence after he or she was object to tax surcharges. This view was earlier confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights through the... (More)
Summary
The principle ne bis in idem is a fundamental right that protects individuals from being punished or tried twice for the same offence. The principle is expressed in both Swedish internal law and in several international instruments Sweden has chosen to join.
Throughout the last couple of years there has been an intense discussion whether the Swedish system with punishment for tax offence and tax surcharges is compatible with the principle. Internally, Sweden has not considered it to be incompatible with neither EU-right nor the European Convention on Human Rights to prosecute someone for tax offence after he or she was object to tax surcharges. This view was earlier confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights through the verdict in Rosenquist vs. Sweden. Through later case law the meaning of the principle ne bis in idem as it is expressed in art. 4 in protocol 7 has changed. In the case Zolotukhin vs. Russia the European Court of Human Rights expressed that the principle pose a prohibition of double judicial procedures when the second procedure originates from identical facts or from facts that are essentially the same as in the first procedure. Given the principle this definition, many voices have risen saying that the Swedish system no longer can be applied. This point of view has not been taken by the highest authorities in Sweden where they have continued to deliver judgments in tax offence cases despite the fact that the same person earlier was object of tax surcharges.
The issue eventually led to several lower authorities defying existing case law and instead delivered contrary verdicts. Finally, the court in Haparanda decided to ask for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union to clarify the systems accordance with the EU-law. The Court of Justice of the European Union delivered the verdict in Åkerberg/Fransson and said that was is incompatible with the EU-law to apply a system with double proceeding given that both proceedings are criminal in nature. After this verdict, there was no longer any room to apply a system with double proceedings for tax offence and tax surcharges, something that was later verified by the highest authorities in Sweden, Högsta domstolen and Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen.
Finally, Sweden has realized that there is no longer any room to apply a system with double proceedings, taken international instruments in to account. Through an investigation that was put together to look over the system, a bill has now been proposed. The new regulation asks for a coordinated process. A person can thus still both be tried for tax offence and object for tax surcharges, but with the difference that it occurs in the same process in common court.
This thesis contains a description of the development on the area of trials for tax offence and tax surcharges. I also discuss and analyze this development and the proposed bill. Finally, I bring up alternative solutions to the problem that I consider should be discussed more before dismissed. My conclusion is that the proposed bill is not the best solution to the problem. A system where the authorities have to choose one way at an early stage will be a better alternative according to my opinion. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Holmström, Hanna LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20132
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
skattetillägg, skattebrott, ne bis in idem, skatterätt, EU-rätt
language
Swedish
id
4228038
date added to LUP
2014-01-28 17:29:47
date last changed
2014-01-28 17:29:47
@misc{4228038,
  abstract     = {Summary
The principle ne bis in idem is a fundamental right that protects individuals from being punished or tried twice for the same offence. The principle is expressed in both Swedish internal law and in several international instruments Sweden has chosen to join. 
	Throughout the last couple of years there has been an intense discussion whether the Swedish system with punishment for tax offence and tax surcharges is compatible with the principle. Internally, Sweden has not considered it to be incompatible with neither EU-right nor the European Convention on Human Rights to prosecute someone for tax offence after he or she was object to tax surcharges. This view was earlier confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights through the verdict in Rosenquist vs. Sweden. Through later case law the meaning of the principle ne bis in idem as it is expressed in art. 4 in protocol 7 has changed. In the case Zolotukhin vs. Russia the European Court of Human Rights expressed that the principle pose a prohibition of double judicial procedures when the second procedure originates from identical facts or from facts that are essentially the same as in the first procedure. Given the principle this definition, many voices have risen saying that the Swedish system no longer can be applied. This point of view has not been taken by the highest authorities in Sweden where they have continued to deliver judgments in tax offence cases despite the fact that the same person earlier was object of tax surcharges.
	The issue eventually led to several lower authorities defying existing case law and instead delivered contrary verdicts. Finally, the court in Haparanda decided to ask for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union to clarify the systems accordance with the EU-law. The Court of Justice of the European Union delivered the verdict in Åkerberg/Fransson and said that was is incompatible with the EU-law to apply a system with double proceeding given that both proceedings are criminal in nature. After this verdict, there was no longer any room to apply a system with double proceedings for tax offence and tax surcharges, something that was later verified by the highest authorities in Sweden, Högsta domstolen and Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen. 
	Finally, Sweden has realized that there is no longer any room to apply a system with double proceedings, taken international instruments in to account. Through an investigation that was put together to look over the system, a bill has now been proposed. The new regulation asks for a coordinated process. A person can thus still both be tried for tax offence and object for tax surcharges, but with the difference that it occurs in the same process in common court. 
	This thesis contains a description of the development on the area of trials for tax offence and tax surcharges. I also discuss and analyze this development and the proposed bill. Finally, I bring up alternative solutions to the problem that I consider should be discussed more before dismissed. My conclusion is that the proposed bill is not the best solution to the problem. A system where the authorities have to choose one way at an early stage will be a better alternative according to my opinion.},
  author       = {Holmström, Hanna},
  keyword      = {skattetillägg,skattebrott,ne bis in idem,skatterätt,EU-rätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Ne bis in idem vid skattebrott och skattetillägg},
  year         = {2013},
}