CASE OF VEGOTEX INTERNATIONAL S.A. v. BELGIUM
Hearing: Vegotex International S.A. v. Belgium (no. 49812/09) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2021-07-07 00:00:00)
Application no.: 49812/09
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2022-11-03 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2022:1103JUD004981209
Respondent state: BEL
Articles of the Convention: 6;6-1;41
Judges: Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Ganna Yudkivska;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Síofra O'Leary;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković;María Elósegui
Represented by: WOUTERS P. ; VAN BELLE D.
Issue: Article 444 of the 1992 Income Tax Code ; Section 49 of the Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 9 July 2004 ; Articles 2244 and 2251 of the Civil Code ; Section 11 of the Act of 23  March 1999 on the organisation of the courts in tax matters
Strasbourg case-law cited: A and B v. Norway [GC], nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11, 15 November 2016;Advisory opinion on the applicability of statutes of limitation to prosecution, conviction and punishment in respect of an offence constituting, in substance, an act of torture [GC], request no. P16-2021-001, Armenian Court of Cassation, § 72, 26 April 2022;Antia and Khupenia v. Georgia, no. 7523/10, 18 June 2020;Arnolin and Others v. France, nos. 20127/03 and 24 others, § 76, 9 January 2007;Biagioli v. San Marino (dec.), no. 8162/13, §§ 92-94, 8 July 2014;Blečić v. Croatia [GC], no. 59532/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-III;Borcea v. Romania (dec.), no. 55959/14, § 64, 22 September 2015;Cabourdin v. France, no. 60796/00, § 37, 11 April 2006;Čepek v. the Czech Republic, no. 9815/10, 5 September 2013;Chap Ltd v. Armenia, no. 15485/09, §§ 41 and 44, 4 May 2017;Chim and Przywieczerski v. Poland, nos. 36661/07 and 38433/07, §§ 199-207, 12 April 2018;Clinique des Acacias and Others v. France, nos. 65399/01 and 3 others, 13 October 2005;Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96 and 4 others, § 149, ECHR 2000 VII;Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 146, 25 September 2018;Deweer v. Belgium, 27 February 1980, § 46, Series A no. 35;Dimopulos v. Turkey, no. 37766/05, § 45, 2 April 2019;Eckle v. Germany, 15 July 1982, § 73, Series A no. 51;Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22;Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98, § 82, ECHR 2003-X;Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98, ECHR 2001 VII;Georgiou v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 40042/98, 16 May 2000;Gestur Jónsson and Ragnar Halldór Hall v. Iceland [GC], nos. 68273/14 and 68271/14, 22 December 2020;Golder v. the United Kingdom, 21 February 1975, § 36, Series A no. 18;Guðmundur Andri Ástráðsson v. Iceland [GC], no. 26374/18, § 238, 1 December 2020;Guérin v. France, 29 July 1998, § 37, Reports 1998-V;Hentrich v. France, 22 September 1994, § 39, Series A no. 296-A;Hôpital local Saint Pierre d’Oléron and Others v. France, nos. 18096/12 and 20 others, 8 November 2018;Hussein and Others v. Belgium, no. 45187/12, § 60, 16 March 2021;Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 186, 22 May 2012;Janosevic v. Sweden, no. 34619/97, ECHR 2002 VII;Jussila v. Finland [GC], no. 73053/01, ECHR 2006 XIV;König v. Germany, 28 June 1978, § 98, Series A no. 27;Legrand v. France, no. 23228/08, §§ 36-40, 26 May 2011;Les Authentiks and Supras Auteuil 91 v. France, nos. 4696/11 and 4703/11, 27 October 2016;Lilly France v. France (no. 2), no. 20429/07, § 51, 25 November 2010;Lobo Machado v. Portugal, 20 February 1996, § 31, Reports 1996-I;Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 123, 29 November 2016;Maggio and Others v. Italy, nos. 46286/09 and 4 others, 31 May 2011;Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no. 10511/10, § 134, 26 April 2016;Nada v. Switzerland [GC], no. 10593/08, § 243, ECHR 2012;National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 23 October 1997, § 112, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 VII;Nicolae Virgiliu Tănase v. Romania [GC], no. 41720/13, §§ 192 and 195, 25 June 2019;Nideröst-Huber v. Switzerland, 18 February 1997, § 23, Reports 1997 I;OGIS-Institut Stanislas, OGEC Saint-Pie X and Blanche de Castille and Others v. France, nos. 42219/98 and 54563/00, 27 May 2004;Oleksandr Volkov v. Ukraine, no. 21722/11, § 137, ECHR 2013;Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II;Petko Petkov v. Bulgaria, no. 2834/06, 19 February 2013;Pressos Compania Naviera S.A. and Others v. Belgium, 20 November 1995, Series A no. 332;Previti v. Italy (dec.), no. 1845/08, § 80, 12 February 2013;Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, 6 November 2018;Regner v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 35289/11, § 146, 19 September 2017;Rivera Vazquez and Calleja Delsordo v. Switzerland, no. 65048/13, 22 January 2019;S.C. Service Benz Com S.R.L. v. Romania, no. 58045/11, §§ 32 33, 4 July 2017;Scoppola v. Italy (no. 2) [GC], no. 10249/03, § 132, 17 September 2009;Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no. 36813/97, § 126, ECHR 2006-V;Segame SA v. France, no. 4837/06, §§ 56-60, ECHR 2012 (extracts);Simeonovi v. Bulgaria [GC], no. 21980/04, § 110, 12 May 2017;Skondrianos v. Greece, nos. 63000/00 and 2 others, §§ 29-30, 18 December 2003;Sträg Datatjänster AB v. Sweden (dec.), no. 50664/99, 21 June 2005;Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis Andreadis v. Greece, 9 December 1994, § 49, Series A no. 301-B;Vermeulen v. Belgium, 20 February 1996, § 33, Reports 1996-I;Villnow v. Belgium (dec.), no. 16938/05, 29 January 2008;Zielinski and Pradal and Gonzalez and Others v. France [GC], nos. 24846/94 and 9 others, § 57, ECHR 1999-VII;Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-78, 5 April 2018
Conclusion: No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Equality of arms);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE