 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) |
| Åkerberg Fransson | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | European Court of Justice |
| Citation(s) | (2013) C-617/10 |
| Keywords | |
| Human rights | |
Åkerberg Fransson (2013) C-617/10 is an EU law case, concerning human rights in the European Union.
Mr Fransson claimed he should not have criminal proceedings brought against him after he had already got tax fines. The Åklagaren (Public Prosecutor's Office) prosecuted Mr Fransson for fraudulently misstating his liabilities for income and Value Added Tax, failing to declare employers' contributions in his work as a fisherman on the Kalix River. Directive 2006/112/EC harmonised principles of those taxes. He got fines for 2004 and 2005 in 2007. Then criminal prosecutions began. CFREU article 50 says that nobody shall be tried or punished twice for a criminal conviction ( ne bis in idem , not the same thing twice). ECHR Protocol 7, article 4 contains the same.
The Court of Justice, Grand Chamber, held that a tax penalty, for value added tax, if not criminal in nature can be imposed. EU law does not govern relations of member states to the ECHR. However, it precludes a national law disapplying provisions contrary to the CFREU, as it withholds a power to assess fully whether a provision is compatible with the Charter.
18 That article of the Charter thus confirms the Court's case-law relating to the extent to which actions of the Member States must comply with the requirements flowing from the fundamental rights guaranteed in the legal order of the European Union.
19 The Court's settled case-law indeed states, in essence, that the fundamental rights guaranteed in the legal order of the European Union are applicable in all situations governed by European Union law, but not outside such situations. In this respect the Court has already observed that it has no power to examine the compatibility with the Charter of national legislation lying outside the scope of European Union law. On the other hand, if such legislation falls within the scope of European Union law, the Court, when requested to give a preliminary ruling, must provide all the guidance as to interpretation needed in order for the national court to determine whether that legislation is compatible with the fundamental rights the observance of which the Court ensures (see inter alia, to this effect, Case C‑260/89 ERT [1991] I‑2925, paragraph 42; Case C‑299/95 Kremzow [1997] ECR I‑2629, paragraph 15; Case C‑309/96 Annibaldi [2007] ECR I‑7493, paragraph 13; Case C‑94/00 Roquette Frères [2002] ECR I‑9011, paragraph 25; Case C‑349/07 Sopropé [2008] ECR I‑10369, paragraph 34; Case C‑256/11 Dereci and Others [2011] ECR I‑11315, paragraph 72; and Case C‑27/11 Vinkov [2012] ECR, paragraph 58).
20 That definition of the field of application of the fundamental rights of the European Union is borne out by the explanations relating to Article 51 of the Charter, which, in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 6(1) TEU and Article 52(7) of the Charter, have to be taken into consideration for the purpose of interpreting it (see, to this effect, Case C‑279/09 DEB [2010] ECR I‑13849, paragraph 32). According to those explanations, 'the requirement to respect fundamental rights defined in the context of the Union is only binding on the Member States when they act in the scope of Union law'.
21 Since the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter must therefore be complied with where national legislation falls within the scope of European Union law, situations cannot exist which are covered in that way by European Union law without those fundamental rights being applicable. The applicability of European Union law entails applicability of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter.
22 Where, on the other hand, a legal situation does not come within the scope of European Union law, the Court does not have jurisdiction to rule on it and any provisions of the Charter relied upon cannot, of themselves, form the basis for such jurisdiction (see, to this effect, the order in Case C‑466/11 Currà and Others [2012] ECR, paragraph 26).
23 These considerations correspond to those underlying Article 6(1) TEU, according to which the provisions of the Charter are not to extend in any way the competences of the European Union as defined in the Treaties. Likewise, the Charter, pursuant to Article 51(2) thereof, does not extend the field of application of European Union law beyond the powers of the European Union or establish any new power or task for the European Union, or modify powers and tasks as defined in the Treaties (see Dereci and Others, paragraph 71).
24 in the case in point, it is to be noted at the outset that the tax penalties and criminal proceedings to which Mr Åkerberg Fransson has been or is subject are connected in part to breaches of his obligations to declare VAT.
25 in relation to VAT, it follows, first, from Articles 2, 250(1) and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1), which reproduce inter alia the provisions of Article 2 of the Sixth Directive and of Article 22(4) and (8) of that directive in the version resulting from Article 28h thereof, and second, from Article 4(3) TEU that every Member State is under an obligation to take all legislative and administrative measures appropriate for ensuring collection of all the VAT due on its territory and for preventing evasion (see Case C‑132/06 Commission v Italy [2008] ECR I‑5457, paragraphs 37 and 46).
European Union law is a system of rules operating within the member states of the European Union (EU). Since the founding of the European Coal and Steel Community following World War II, the EU has developed the aim to "promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples". The EU has political institutions, social and economic policies, which transcend nation states for the purpose of cooperation and human development. According to its Court of Justice the EU represents "a new legal order of international law".
In European Union law, direct effect is the principle that Union law may, if appropriately framed, confer rights on individuals which the courts of member states of the European Union are bound to recognise and enforce.
The European single market, internal market or common market is a single market comprising the 27 member states of the European Union (EU) as well as – with certain exceptions – Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway through the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and Switzerland through sectoral treaties. The single market seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people, known collectively as the "four freedoms".
Francovich v Italy (1991) C-6/90 was a decision of the European Court of Justice which established that European Union Member States could be liable to pay compensation to individuals who suffered a loss by reason of the Member State's failure to transpose an EU directive into national law. This principle is sometimes known as the principle of state liability or "the rule in Francovich" in European Union law.
Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentación SA (1990) C-106/89 was a decision of the European Court of Justice concerning the indirect effect of European Community law, now European Union law. It established that the courts of European Union member states have a duty to interpret national legislation in the light of unimplemented European Union directives.
Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam v Inspire Art Ltd (2003) C-167/01 is a leading corporate law case, concerning the EU law of freedom of establishment for companies.
The Rosella or International Transport Workers Federation v Viking Line ABP (2007) C-438/05 is an EU law case, relevant to all labour law within the European Union, including UK labour law, which held that there is a positive right to strike. However, it also held that the right to strike could infringe a business's freedom of establishment under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union article 49. The decision has been criticised for the Court's inarticulate line of reasoning, and its disregard of fundamental human rights.
Werhof v Freeway Traffic Systems GmbH & Co KG (2006) C-499/04 is a European labour law case concerning the minimum floor of requirements in the European Union for the enforceability of a collective agreement after a transfer of a business.
The general principles of European Union law are general principles of law which are applied by the European Court of Justice and the national courts of the member states when determining the lawfulness of legislative and administrative measures within the European Union. General principles of European Union law may be derived from common legal principles in the various EU member states, or general principles found in international law or European Union law. General principles of law should be distinguished from rules of law as principles are more general and open-ended in the sense that they need to be honed to be applied to specific cases with correct results.
Kücükdeveci v Swedex GmbH & Co KG (2010) C-555/07 is a leading EU labour law case, which held that there is a general principle of law in all European Union member states, against discrimination, and in favour of equal treatment.
Kušionová v SMART Capital a.s. (2014) Case C-34/13 is an EU law and consumer protection case, concerning the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive. It emphasises the foundations of consumer protection on inequality of bargaining power and imbalances in information.
Banco Español de Crédito SA v Camino (2012) Case C-618/10 is a case relevant for European contract law concerning the scope of consumer protection in the Unfair Terms Directive under EU law.
Paola Faccini Dori v Recreb Srl (1994) C-91/92 is an EU law case, concerning the conflict of law between a national legal system and European Union law.
European consumer law concerns consumer protection within Europe, particularly through European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Omega Spielhallen und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn (2004) C-36/02 is an EU law case, concerning the freedom to provide services and the free movement of goods in the European Union.
Weigel v Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg (2004) C-387/01 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of workers in the European Union.
Deutsches Weintor eG v Land Rheinland-Pfalz (2012) C-544/10 is an EU law case, concerning the free movement of services in the European Union.
Opinion 2/13 (2014) is an EU law case determined by the European Court of Justice, concerning the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights, and more generally the relationship between the European Court of Justice and European Court of Human Rights.
Association de médiation sociale v Union locale des syndicats CGT (2014) C-176/12 is an EU law case, concerning the protection of human rights in the European Union.
