FOURTH SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF PIRTTIMÄKI v. FINLAND
 
(Application no. 35232/11)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
 
20 May 2014
 
 
 
FINAL
 
20/08/2014
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Pirttimäki v. Finland,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Ineta Ziemele, President,
 Päivi Hirvelä,
 George Nicolaou,
 Nona Tsotsoria,
 Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
 Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
 Faris Vehabović, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 15 April 2014,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 35232/11) against the Republic of Finland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Finnish national, Mr Harry Veijo Juhani Pirttimäki (“the applicant”), on 9 June 2011. 2. The applicant was represented by Mr Ossi Taurén, a lawyer practising in Helsinki. The Finnish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Arto Kosonen of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 3. The applicant complained under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention about double jeopardy (ne bis in idem) involving taxation proceedings, in which a tax surcharge had been imposed, and criminal proceedings for aggravated tax fraud, and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings. 4. On 15 March 2013 the application was communicated to the Government. THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Jyväskylä. 6. The applicant owned shares in a limited liability company. In 2001 and 2002 a tax inspection was conducted in the company for the tax years 1996 to 2001. The tax inspectors found that the company was not owned by four different English companies but in reality the applicant and three other Finnish persons owned it, with equal shares. A. Administrative proceedings against the company
7. On 26 February 2003 additional taxes and tax surcharges (veronkorotus, skatteförhöjning) were imposed on the company for the tax years 1997 to 1999 and 2001. 8. The company sought rectification from the local Tax Rectification Committee (verotuksen oikaisulautakunta, prövningsnämnden i beskattningsärenden). 9. On 16 March 2005 the Tax Rectification Committee partly accepted, partly rejected the company’s applications. 10. The applicant, in the name of the company, appealed to the Administrative Court (hallinto-oikeus, förvaltningsdomstolen), claiming that he owned the whole company through four English companies. 11. On 28 February 2007 the Helsinki Administrative Court rejected the company’s appeal and upheld the taxation decisions. It found that there was no proof that the English companies had in fact been sold to the applicant but, on the contrary, the case documents showed that in reality all four Finnish persons behind the English companies had equally exercised their powers in the company. 12. On 10 August 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen) refused the company leave to appeal. B. Administrative proceedings against the applicant
13. In connection with the company taxation, additional taxes and tax surcharges were also imposed on the applicant as he had received disguised dividends from the company. He was to pay 8,500 Finnish marks (FIM) in tax surcharges for the tax year 1997 (1,429.60 euros, EUR), FIM 5,000 for the tax year 1998 (EUR 1,021.43), FIM 6,000 for the tax year 1999 (EUR 1,211.64) and FIM 10,000 for the tax year 2001 (EUR 1,904.50). 14. The applicant sought rectification from two local Tax Rectification Committees. 15. On 25 April 2005 the Sisä-Suomi Tax Rectification Committee rejected the applicant’s applications in respect of the tax years 1998, 1999 and 2001. 16. On 31 May 2005 the Kaakkois-Suomi Tax Rectification Committee rejected the applicant’s application in respect of the tax year 1997. 17. The applicant appealed to the Administrative Court, claiming that there was no reason to impose additional taxes and tax surcharges as he was the only shareholder in the company. 18. On 16 April 2007 the Hämeenlinna Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decisions concerning the tax years 1998, 1999 and 2001. It found that in reality the company was owned by four Finnish persons with equal shares and therefore the taxation decisions were not incorrect. 19. On 30 December 2008 the Kouvola Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s appeal against the decision concerning the tax year 1997. It found, like the other courts, that the applicant could not be regarded as the sole owner of the company. 20. On 10 August 2009 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant leave to appeal against any of the above-mentioned tax decisions. C. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
21. On 7 March 2002, on the basis of the tax inspection, the tax authorities requested the police to investigate the matter. The applicant was arrested on 4 June 2002 and his office was searched the same day. He was questioned by the police for the first time on 5 June 2002 and was released thereafter. The pre-trial investigation was concluded on 29 December 2006. 22. On 11 July 2008 the public prosecutor pressed charges against the applicant. The applicant was accused, on the company’s count, of an accounting offence (kirjanpitorikos, bokföringsbrott) for having introduced incorrect and misleading information in the company bookkeeping between 1997 and 2001, and of aggravated tax fraud (törkeä veropetos, grovt skattebedrägeri) for having given incorrect information to the tax authorities between 1998 and 2002. As a result, the company had evaded EUR 59,335.69 in taxes. 23. On 30 September 2009 the Kotka District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to a one‑ year suspended sentence. As to the length of the proceedings, the court noted that the proceedings had lasted by then 7 years and 4 months. The proceedings had been unusually long and the length was not attributable to the applicant. The proper sentence for the applicant would have been imprisonment for one year but due to the excessive length it was turned into a suspended sentence. 24. The applicant appealed to the Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten), requesting that the charges be dropped as he had already been convicted in the matter: tax surcharges had been imposed on him and a final decision delivered. 25. On 2 July 2010 the Kouvola Appeal Court upheld the District Court’s judgment. As to ne bis in idem, the court found that the decisions containing tax surcharges had become final on 10 August 2009. As the charges had been pressed before that, on 11 July 2008, there was no impediment to the examination of the case as the charges had been brought before the administrative proceedings became final.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 4
Outcome: no_violation