Lexploria

SECOND SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 803/02 by INTERSPLAV against Ukraine

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 31 March 2005 as a Chamber composed of:

Mr J.-P. Costa , President , Mr A.B. Baka , Mr I. Cabral Barreto , Mr K. Jungwiert , Mr V. Butkevych , Mrs A. Mularoni , Ms D. Jočienė , judges , and Mr S. Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 December 2001 ,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant company, the “Intersplav” (her e inafter “the applicant”), is a joint venture enterprise, located in the town of Sverdlovsk in the Lugansk Region , Ukraine . It wa s represented before the Court by Mr. Aleksandr Syomkin. The respondent Government were represented by their Agents - Mrs V. Lutkovska and Mrs Z. Bortnovska .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant manufactures goods using recycled scrap metal purchased in Ukraine , bearing a 20 % VAT rate. The major part of the applicant ' s production is exported from Ukraine at a zero VAT rate. The applicant is thereby entitled to a refund of the VAT due on the price of the scrap metal. Under the Law on Value - Added Tax (see the Domestic Law p art below) such a refund should be made within a one-month period following the applicant ' s submission of the relevant calculations to the local tax administration. If the refund is delayed, compensation is payable. Both payments (the refund and compensation) are made by the State Treasury upon the submissions of the relevant tax authority.

Since April 1998 the VAT refund to the applicant has been systematically delayed due to the failure of the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration to confirm the amounts involved. For the same reason, the applicant could not receive compensation for the delayed VAT refund (see the annexed table of over 140 court decisions ) .

Since 1998, the applicant has complained to the Lugansk Regional Tax Administration and the State Tax Administration about the failure of the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration to issue timely certificates for the VAT refunds. However, these authorities found no illegalities in the actions of the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration, whilst recognising the existence of the State ' s debt s to the applicant.

The applicant also complained to the Sverdlovsk Prosecutor and the General Prosecutor ' s Office, without result.

In its letter of 22 October 2002, the applicant claimed that further obstacles have arisen in running its business, including new discriminatory legislation, transport controls by the police, and judicial proceedings against its employees for defamation instituted by the Tax Administration.

Proceedings before the domestic courts

Since 1998 the applicant has instituted a number of proceedings , more than 140 so far, in the Lugansk Commercial Court against the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration and the State Treasury Department in order to receive compensation for th e delayed refunding of the VAT.

In the proceedings during 1999-2000, the applicant requested the court to oblige the Tax Administration to confirm the amounts of compensation due to the applicant. The court found for the applicant and ordered the tax administration to issue the requested confirmation for the amounts claimed.

In the proceedings during 2001-2003, the applicant changed the subject of its claim and requested the courts to award it the amounts of the VAT refund and compensation directly. The T ax A dministration and Treasury both oppose d the claims : the former on an alleged lack of competence in VAT refund ing , the latter on the impossibility to refund any VAT without prior confirmation of such an amount by the T ax A dministration. The court found for the applicant and awarded the claimed amounts in its decisions between 2001 and 200 4 . It confirmed the applicant ' s right to compensation for t he various delayed VAT refunds.

The court decisions given between 1999 and 2002 were executed with in period s ranging from four days to two years and eight months . The oldest decision that remained unenforced in February 2004, according to the applicant, was given on 18 March 2003.

In its further correspondence , the applicant maintained that the Tax Authorities claimed that the court decisions given in its favour should not be directly enforceable, but would require the prior confirmation of the awarded amounts by the Tax Administration.

On 17 March 2004 the applicant lodged a claim with the Lugansk Commercial Court against the Lugansk Regional Department of the State Treasury and the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration for their refusal to enforce the judgments rendered by the said court in the period between March 2003 and February 200 4 (see the annex) and for a proposal to convert the amounts awarded by the above judgments in to loan bonds with a five-year term.

On 24 May 2004 the court found for the applicant and ordered the defendants to enforce the impugned judgments.

The applicant maintained that , as of 18 June 2004 , the amount of the State debt to the company confirmed by court decisions was UAH 26,363,200 ( 3 ,820,753.62 euros ).

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The collection and refund of value-added tax (VAT) is regulated by the Law on Value - Added Tax. Article 3 of the law provides that both the sale of goods in Ukraine and the export of goods from Ukraine are subject to taxation. Under Article 6 of the law, the former is taxed at a 20 % rate, whereas the latter is taxed at 0 %.

The procedure to establish the amount of VAT due or to be refunded is regulated by Article s 7 and 8 , which provide as relevant:

“7.7. The procedure to establish the amount of tax to be paid into the budget or to be used as compensation from the budget , and the terms of settlements within the budget

7.7.1. The amount of tax to be paid into the budget or refunded from the budget shall be determined as the difference between the total amount of tax obligations, which commence with any sale of goods (works, services) within the reporting period, and the amount of tax to be credited during the reporting period.

Payment of the tax shall be made not later than the twentieth day of the month that follows the reporting period.

7.7.2. The tax payer shall submit a tax declaration to the local body of State tax services ...

7.7.3. Where ... the amount determined by subparagraph 7.7.1 of this Article is negative, it shall be refunded to the tax payer from the State budget of Ukraine within a month following the reporting period. ...

Amounts that are not so refunded to the tax payer ... shall be considered a budget debt. Interest at 120 % of the basic rate of the National Bank of Ukraine shall be charged on that debt from the moment it arises and for the whole period of its validity, the repayment date inclusive. The tax payer is entitled at any moment after commencement of the budget debt to apply to a court with an action to collect the budget funds and establish the liability of the officials responsible for the untimely refund of overpaid taxes. ...

7.7.5. Amounts of value-added tax are included in the State budget and shall first be used for budget refunds of value-added tax according to this Law. ... Where the amount of budget receipts obtained from the payment of value-added tax ... does not cover the amount subject to refunding ... , funds from other [State budget] resources ... shall be used for such compensation. ...

8.1. A tax payer that performs export operations ... and files calculations for export compensation ... may receive such compensation within 30 calendar days from the date of submitting such calculations. ...

8.6. Export compensation shall be provided within 30 calendar days, following the day of the filing of export compensation calculations.

In case the tax payer fails to submit the calculation of export compensation within the established terms, export compensation shall not be provided and the amounts of such compensation shall be taken into account when calculating the tax payer ' s future tax obligations ... Calculations of export budgetary compensation shall be submitted together with the declarations for the corresponding reporting period.”

Procedure f or the Refund of Value Added Tax, adopted by the joint decree of the State Tax A d ministration of Ukraine and the Main Department of the State Treasury of Ukraine No. 209/ 72 on 2 July 1997

According to the Procedure, the VAT refund is made by the State Treasury of Ukraine on the basis of a confirmation by the tax authroties or a court decision. The VAT refund shall be made within five days after the tax authority have submitted the confirmation of the amount claimed.

COMPLAINT S

The applicant complained of the non-enforcement of numerous court decisions that confirmed its entitlement to State funds (VAT refund s and compensation for delays) and invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 . It further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the State ' s practice of groundless ly refus ing to confirm the applicant ' s entitlement to VAT refund s constituted a further interfere nce with the peaceful enjoyment of its property, and that such interference was disproportionate and caused significant losses to its business.

THE LAW

I. THE GOVERNMENT ' S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION

1. The Government presented a preliminary objection concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the applicant. The Government noted that the execution of judgments in the applicant ' s favour is conducted by the State Bailiffs ' Service as regards the collection of court fees and expenses and by the State Treasury as regards the collections of VAT refund s and default interest.

The Government maintained that the applicant never challenged the alleged inactivity of the State B ailiffs ' S ervice or the State T reasury before the court s . The Government considered that the fact that the Treasury was a co-defendant in the judicial proceedings d id not prevent the applicant from challenging the alleged inactivity of the Treasury at the enforcement stage of the judgments.

The Government further maintained that Ukrainian legislation provided a possibility to apply to the court at any moment to recover budget debts. The applicant used this remedy and it was effective.

The applicant maintained that the rule of non-exhaustion was not applicable to its case, since the applicant had found itself in the situation where numerous , consecutive refusals by the tax administration to confirm the amount of the VAT re fund were found to be unlawful by the courts. Nevertheless, this practice persisted despite its obvious unlawfulness. The applicant refers to this Court ' s case-law that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies i s “inapplicable where an administrative practice consisting of a repetition of acts incompatible with the Convention and official tolerance by the State authorities has been shown to exist, and is of such a nature as to make proceedings futile or ineffective” (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey , judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, p. 1207, § 67) .

The Court notes that , regarding debt recovery , the applicant did have a remedy in every , albeit numerous, instance to seek and obtain the amounts due to it from the State Budget by lodging application s with the domestic courts. At the same time , the Court observes that the court decisions given in the applicant ' s favour did not prevent the tax administration from continuing its practice of systematically fail ing to confirm the State debts to the applicant, al though this failure was hel d to be ill- found ed by the domestic courts on numerous occasions. The Court further notes that , in addition to the judicial proceedings which the applicant had to initiate , it was required to take other steps in an attempt to remedy the situation, including complaints to other State institutions. In this situation, the Court agrees with the applicant that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies is inapplicable in the instan t case, since the delayed refunding of VAT to the applicant can be described as an administrative practice consisting of a repetition of acts, wh ose compatibility with the Convention require s further examination by the Court. The Court therefore rejects this objection of the Government.

II. THE MERITS OF THE APPLICANT ' S CLAIMS

2. The applicant complained that, due to the non-execution of judgment s in its favour, its right to a fair hearing was violated. It invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention w h ich provides insofar as relevant:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing ... by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”

The Government maintained that Article 6 § 1 of the Convention does not apply in the present case, since the judgments at issue did not concern any “civil rights and obligations” of the applicant company and belonged to the sphere of public law (tax matters).

The applicant stated that the proceedings in question did concern its pecuniary interests and recalled the autonomous concept of “civil rights and obligations” given in the Court ' s case-law . The applicant maintained that the disputed relations ha d features of both public and private law, and that the latter prevailed . Therefore, the applicant maintained that the proceedings in question fell within the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

T he Court recalls its case-law according to which tax disputes fall outside the scope of civil rights and obligations, despite the pecuniary effects which they necessarily produce for the taxpayer (see Ferrazzini v. Italy [GC], no. 44759/98, §§ 29 ‑ 31, 12 July 2001). Accordingly, Article 6 § 1 does not apply in the instant case.

It follows that this complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.

3. The applicant complain ed that the State had interfered with the peaceful enjoyment of its property, and that such interference was disproportionate and caused significant losses to its business. It invokes Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 which provides as relevant:

“Every ... legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.”

The Government agreed that the judgments given in favour of the applicant constitute a “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. The Government furth er maintained that the judgments given in favour of the applicant were enforced without excessive delay and that the length of enforcement could be explained by the need to balance different budget expenditures, as well as the substantial amounts to be refunded to the applicant company .

The Government further submitted that the situation in the instant case did not constitute an individual and excessive burden for the applicant , since only a part of the VAT refund was delayed and it was gradually paid to the applicant.

The Court notes that , in the instant case , the delays in the majority of the enforcement proceedings were not excessive (see the annex ed table ) and , in any event , the applicant had , and used , the remedy available under domestic law for VAT refund proceedings to claim compensation for any delay in the enforcement of the judgments in question.

In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant ' s complaint about the length of the various enforcement proceedings in the present case should be rejected either for lack of victim status, in so far as the applicant was awarded compensation for the delays, or for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, where the applicant did not avail itself of the opportunity to claim compensation before the national courts. The Court concludes that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded as a whole and must therefore be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

4. The applicant further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No.1 that the State ' s practice of groundless ly refus ing to confirm the debts due to it , and the judicial proceedings which it then had to initiate systematically to enforce the VAT refunds, constitute d an administrative practice of an unjustified interference with its property rights.

i . Applicability of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

The Government maintained that the applicant ' s entitlement to VAT refund s can only be considered a “possession” under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 after confirmation of the amounts by court decisions. If the tax authorities dispute the entitlement of the applicant to the claimed VAT refund, it is only by virtue of a court decision that the applicant acquires “possessions” or “legitimate expectations” to receive them.

The applicant maintained that the basis for the VAT refund under the law wa s the information provided by the applicant itself in its tax declarations. The court decisions given in its favour in the present case showed that its right to the VAT refund s was violated prior to its application to the court s , thus demonstrat ing that the right existed prior to those decisions. Moreover, under the law , the State could only use funds received from VAT payments for other purposes after all VAT refunds had been made . Until then, t herefore , the link between the VAT and the taxpayer remain ed . It concluded that the right to VAT refunds , and compensation for delays in their payment , constituted “possessions” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 .

The Court points out that the concept of “possessions” in the first part of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 has an autonomous meaning which is independent from the formal classification in domestic law (see Beyeler v. Italy [GC], no. 33202/96, § 100, ECHR 2000-I). The issue that needs to be examined is whether the circumstances of the case, considered as a whole, conferred on the applicant an en title ment to a substantive interest protected by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

In this connection, t he Court notes that in the instant case the remaining dispute does not concern the particular amount of a VAT refund or of compensation for the delay , but the applicant ' s general entitlement under the law to VAT refund s and compensation . The Court observes that , having met the criteria and requirements established by the domestic legislation , the applicant could reasonably expect the refund of the VAT it had paid in the course of its business activities , as well as compensation for any delay . Even though a particular c laim for a VAT refund may be subject to checks and objections from the competent State authorities, the relevant provisions of the L aw on Value-Added Tax do not require the prior judicial review of a claim to validate a company ' s eligib ility for a refund. Finally, from the case-file it appears that the tax authorities did not dispute the amounts to be paid to the applicant, but simply refused to confirm them without any apparent reason, re lying erroneously on a lack of competence i n r efund ing matters .

While the Court does not find it necessary to determine the precise content and scope of the legal interest in question , it is nevertheless satisfied that the factors outlined above show that the applicant ha d a proprietary interest recognised by Ukrainian law, an d protect ed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Consequently, this complaint cannot be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention.

ii. Admissibility of the complaint

The Government maintained that the tax authorities ' actions in the pr esent case w ere based on a disproportion between the amounts paid by the applicant in taxes and the amounts of VAT refund which it claimed. This created a suspicion that the applicant was using ficti ti ous companies for its scrap metal supplies . According to the Government such ficti ti ous enterprises were indeed discovered by the authorities.

The applicant maintained that it had paid its taxes lawfully and these payment s were checked on numerous occasions by the State authorities. It pointed out that it was not responsibl e for other companies from whom it bought metal , the price of which was inclusive of VAT . The obligation to pay that VAT was on the latter companies not the applicant. The applicant underlined that it had neither the competence, nor the possibility to control other businesses , and the situation referred to by the Government demonstrated the unsatisfactory work ings of the tax authorities , for which the applicant should not be held liable .

The Court considers, in the light of the parties ' submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes therefore that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares admissible, without prejudging the merits, the applicant ' s complaint concerning the practice of an allegedly unjustified State interference with the VAT refund s owed to it ;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

S. Naismith J.-P. Costa Deputy Registrar President

ANNEX Application No. 803/02

List of the domestic court cases referred to by the applicant.

Proceedings in the commercial courts against the Sverdlovsk Town Tax Administration to oblige the latter to confirm the the amounts of compensation for delayed VAT refund s ( u nder the procedure that was in force before 29 June 2001 )

Case No.

Period of VAT refund [1]

Decision of the Lugansk Commercial Court

(final from the date of rendering)

Extraordinary appeals, if any

Sum to be confirmed according to the judgment + judicial costs

(UAH) [2]

Date of enforcement [3]

Period of enforcement

Chairman of the Lugansk Commercial Court

Highest Commercial Court

3/139

Oct 1998*

18 May 1999

9 Sep 1999

31 Jan 2000

46,719.29 + 85.00

Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 (4/451) [4]

-

3/128

Sep 1998*

18 May 1999

9 Sep 1999

31 Jan 2000

178,302.67 + 85.00

Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 ( 4/452 )

-

3/167

Jan, Apr, May 1998*

1 June 1999

9 Sept 1999

28 Jan 2000

21,166.56 + 85.00

Enforced by the Bailiffs ' Service on 1 Feb 2002

2 years and 8 months

3/166

Jul , Aug 1998*

1 Jun 1999

9 Sep 1999

31 Jan 2000

23,914.29 + 85.00

Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 ( 4/449 )

-

3/315

Dec 1998*

21 Oct 1999

20 Dec 1999

89,268.59 + 85.00

Enforced by the Bailiffs ' Service on 1 Feb 2002

Over 2 years and 3 months

3/314

Nov 1998*

21 Oct 1999

20 Dec 1999

2,117.58 + 85.00

Enforced by the Bailiffs ' Service on 25 Jan 2002

Over 2 years and 3 months

3/313

Jan 1999*

21 Oct 1999

20 Dec 1999

58,961.41 + 85.00

Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 ( 4/46 )

-

3/344

Feb 1999*

25 Jan 2000

38,793.16 + 85.00

Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 ( 3/42 )

-

3/343

Dec 1998*

25 Jan 2000

3,758.47 + 85.00

Enforced by the Bailiffs ' Service on 1 Feb 2002

Over 2 years

3/47

May 1999*

9 Mar 2000

65,914.00 + 85.00

Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 ( 3/43 )

-

3/46

Mar 1999*

9 Mar 2000

131,142.22 + 85.00

Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 June 2002 ( 4/47 )

-

3/45

Apr 1999*

9 Mar 2000

45,699.08 + 85.00

Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 ( 6/41 )

-

3/44

Feb 1999*

9 Mar 2000

2,566.23 + 85.00

Recalled by the applicant on 18 March 2002 (see judgment 3/42 of 19 Mar 2002 )

-

3/233

Sep 1999*

12 Sep 2000

23 Oct 2000

568,241.45 + 85.00

Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 ( 3/45 )

-

3/232

Oct 1999*

12 Sep 2000

23 Oct 2000

582,928.28 + 85.00

Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 ( 4/42 )

-

3/231

Nov 1999*

12 Sep 2000

23 Oct 2000

262,344.90 + 85.00

Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 ( 3/44 )

-

3/229

Dec 1999*

12 Sep 2000

23 Oct 2000

273,493.72 + 85.00

Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 ( 4/43 )

-

3/228

Jan 1999*

12 Sep 2000

23 Oct 2000

158,774.18 + 85.00

Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 ( 6/43 )

-

6/344

Feb 2000*

24 Oct 2000

20 Nov 2000

175,854.49 + 85.00

Execution writ withdrawn by the applicant on 14 Jun 2002 ( 6/42 )

-

Proceedings in the commercial courts against the Sverdlovsk Town Tax State Administration to receive VAT refund s and/or compensation for delayed VAT refund s ( u nder the procedure that came in to force after 29 June 2001 )

Case No.

Period of VAT refund [5]

Decision of the Lugansk Commercial Court (final in 10 days, if not appealed)

Decision of the Donetsk Appellate Commercial Court

(final from the date of rendering)

Decision of the Highest Commercial Court

(cassation)

Sum awarded

(UAH)

Date of enforcement

Period of enforcement

3/159

Jul 2000*

21 Jun 2001

18,468.23 + 184.68

Not presented to the Treasury

3/157

May 2000*

21 Jun 2001

10 Oct 2001

19,060.72+ 190.61

Not presented to the Treasury

3/266

Apr 2001

18 Sep 2001

13 Dec 2001

3869689.41 (3376777.83) + 1700

10 Jan 2002

27 days

3/265

May 2001

18 Sep 2001

13 Dec 2001

5,208,700.09 + 1700

10 Jan 2002

27 days

3/264

Feb 2001

18 Sep 2001

13 Dec 2001

553,498.63 + 1,611.05

Not presented to the Treasury

4/449

Aug 1998*

19 Oct 2001

8 Jan 2002

10,483.76

5 Feb 2002

27 days

4/450

Jul 1998*

19 Oct 2001

6 Feb 2002

13,430.53

4/451

Oct 1998*

19 Oct 2001

6 Feb 2002

49,719.29

27 Feb 2002

21 days

4/452

Sep 1998*

19 Oct 2001

8 Jan 2002

178,302.67

5 Dec 2002

10 months and 27 days

6/442

May 2000*

8 Nov 2001

18 Dec 2001

8,6761.19 + 936.61

28 Jan 2002

1 month and 10 days

6/443

Apr 2000*

8 Nov 2001

18 Dec 2001

92,252.55 + 991.53

28 Jan 2002

1 month and 10 days

6/444

Mar 2000*

8 Nov 2001

18 Dec 2001

140,835.35 + 1,477.35

28 Jan 2002

1 month and 10 days

6/445

Sep 2000*

8 Nov 2001

18 Dec 2001

182,500.48 + 1,769.00

28 Jan 2002

1 month and 10 days

6/446

Jul 2000*

8 Nov 2001

18 Dec 2001

49,819.15 + 567.19

28 Jan 2002

1 month and 10 days

6/447

Aug 2000*

8 Nov 2001

18 Dec 2001

208,944.86 + 1,769.00

28 Jan 2002

1 month and 10 days

6/448

Oct 2000*

8 Nov 2001

18 Dec 2001

194,621.94+ 1,769.00

28 Jan 2002

1 month and 10 days

3/421

Oct 2000*

15 Nov 2001

18 Dec 2001

28,785.02+ 1,769.00

21 Jan 2002

1 month and 3 days

3/420

Nov 2000*

15 Nov 2001

18 Dec 2001

274,526.87+ 1,769.00

21 Jan 2002

1 month and 3 days

3/408

Feb 2001*

15 Nov 2001

18 Dec 2001

107,836.83 + 1,147.37

21 Jan 2002

1 month and 3 days

3/423

Dec 2001

15 Nov 2001

18 Dec 2001

287,435.57 + 1,769.00

21 Jan 2002

1 month and 3 days

3/422

Aug 2001 (*)

29 Nov 2001

21 Jan 2002

22 Mar 2002

4,272,053.38 + 54,775.92 + 1700.00

5 Feb 2002

14 days

3/383

Apr 2001(*)

29 Nov 2001

21 Jan 2002

22 Mar 2002

1,139,799.00 + 32039.28*+ 1700.00

5 Feb 2002

14 days

3/382

Jul 2001 (*)

29 Nov 2001

21 Jan 2002

22 Mar 2002

4,390,762.64 + 123,422.53+ 1700.00

5 Feb 2002

14 days

3/418

May 2001 (*)

29 Nov 2001

21 Jan 2002

22 Mar 2002

1,487,680.00 + 19074.91+ 1700.00

5 Feb 2002

14 days

3/522

Jun 2001*

13 Dec 2001

27 Feb 2002

18 Apr 2002

71,095.68

18 Mar 2002

21 days

6/538

Sep 2001 (*)

8 Jan 2002

20 Feb 2002

18 Apr 2002

993,465.11 + 14,207.91+ 1,769.00

11 Mar 2002

21 days

3/521

Mar 2001*

8 Jan 2002

20 Feb 2002

18 Apr 2002

113,294.45 + 1201.94

11 Mar 2002

21 days

6/539

Jun 2001 (*)

8 Jan 2002

20 Feb 2002

23 Apr 2002

1,025.206.00 + 14,156.26 + 1761.21

12 Mar 2002

22 days

6/11

Jul 2001 (*)

24 Jan 2002

19 Mar 2002

10 May 2002

1,132,792.00 + 15,362.52+ 1,769.00

21 Feb 2002

Before the decision became final

6/12

Oct 2001 (*)

24 Jan 2002

19 Mar 2002

20 Apr 2002

2,295,661.86 + 32076.37+ 1,769.00

21 Feb 2002

Before the decision became final

6/15

Jan 2001*

29 Jan 2002

13 Mar 2002

3 Jun 2002

207.659.64 + 1766.93

15 Apr 2002

1 month and 2 days

4/15

Feb 2001

31 Jan 2002

13 Mar 2002

3 Jun 2002

33,427.00 + 386.71

1 Aug 2002

4 months and 17 days

6/31

Nov 2001 (*)

14 Feb 2002

10 Apr 2002

18 Jul 2002

2,182,930.54 + 22,427.37+ 1,769.00

16 May 2002

1 month and 6 days

6/41

Apr 1999*

28 Feb 2002

10 Apr 2002

10 Jun 2002

45,699.08 + 528.99

29 Apr 2002

9 days

6/42

Feb 2000*

28 Feb 2002

10 Apr 2002

10 Jun 2002

175,854.49+ 1,769.00

11 May 2002

1 month and 1 day

6/43

Jan 2000*

28 Feb 2002

10 Apr 2002

10 Jun 2002

158,774.18 + 1656.74

11 May 2002

1 month and 1 day

4/46

Jan 1999*

5 Mar 2002

8 Apr 2002

6 Jun 2002

58,961.41 + 658.61

24 Apr 2002

16 days

4/42

Oct 1999*

6 Mar 2002

3 Jun 2002

18 Jul 2002

574,397.77 + 1768.31

19 Apr 2002

Before the decision became final

4/43

Dec 1999*

6 Mar 2002

3 Jun 2002

18 Jul 2002

261,389.91 + 1766.24

19 Apr 2002

Before the decision became final

4/47

Mar 1999*

6 Mar 2002

8 Apr 2002

17 Jun 2002

130,212.47 + 1370.43

7 May 2002

29 days

4/51

May 2001*

19 Mar 2002

21 May 2002

18 Jul 2002

477,241.48+ 1,769.00

7 May 2002

Before the decision became final

3/45

Sept 1999*

19 Mar 2002

27 May 2002

3 Jun 2002

568,241.45+ 1,769.00

7 May 2002

Before the decision became final

3/43

May 1999*

19 Mar 2002

27 May 2002

3 Jun 2002

65,914.00 + 728.14

24 April 2002

Before the decision became final

3/42

Feb 1999*

19 Mar 2002

27 May 2002

3 Jun 2002

38,793.16 + 452.66

24 Apr 2002

Before the decision became final

4/57

Dec 2001 (*)

21 Mar 2002

21 May 2002

22 Jul 2002

1,774,431.37 + 19,904.24+ 1,769.00

7 May 2002

Before the decision became final

4/49

Apr 2001*

21 Mar 2002

21 May 2002

22 Jul 2002

424,745.18+ 1,769.00

7 May 2002

Before the decision became final

6/69

Sep 2001 (*)

22 Mar 2002

21 May 2002

22 Jul 2002

139,224.20 + 1,087.09 + 1465.39

7 May 2002

Before the decision became final

3/36

Aug 2001 (*)

4 Apr 2002

22 May 2002

11 Jul 2002

746,610.00 + 9818.43 + 1761,14

7 Jun 2002

15 days

3/44

Nov 1999*

11 Apr 2002

3 Jun 2002

22 Jul 2002

257,654.06 + 1737,37

7 Jun 2002

4 days

6/114

Oct 2001

23 Apr 2002

4 Jul 2002

1 Oct 2002

1,084,459.00+ 1,769.00

1 Aug 2002

26 days

6/113

Jan 2002

23 Apr 2002

4 Jul 2002

16 Sep 2002

1,062,637.00+ 1,769.00

1 Aug 2002

26 days

4/113

Jan 2002 (*)

23 Apr 2002

4 Jul 2002

1 Oct 2002

1,466,036.00 + 16,622.40+ 1,769.00

1 Aug 2002

26 days

4/141

Nov 2001

10 May 2002

2 Jul 2002

22 Aug 2002

583,930.00+ 1818.00

10 Jul 2002

8 days

4/140

Dec 2001

10 May 2002

2 Jul 2002

22 Aug 2002

871,950.00+ 1818.00

9 Jul 2002

7 days

4/174

Feb 2002 (*)

23 May 2002

2 Jul 2002

4 Sep 2002

1,481,255.00 + 16,070.60+ 1818.00

Not presented to the Treasury

4/177

Jul 2001*

28 May 2002

17 Jul 2002

17 Oct 2002

202,033.58+ 1818.00

1 Aug 2002

13 days

4/178

Sept 2001*

28 May 2002

17 Jul 2002

17 Oct 2002

33,004.81 + 613.07

1 Aug 2002

13 days

4/179

Jun 2001*

28 May 2002

17 Jul 2002

12 Sep 2002

26,818.36 + 520.27

1 Aug 2002

13 days

4/180

Oct 2001*

28 May 2002

17 Jul 2002

12 Sep 2002

38,550.20 + 696.25

1 Aug 2002

13 days

3/220

Mar 2002 (*)

11 Jun 2002

6 Aug 2002

26 Sep 2002

2,298,499.00 + 12,846.41+ 1818.00

3 Sep 2002

27 days

3/219

Aug 2001*

20 Jun 2002

17 Sep 2002

9 Dec 2002

189,439.57+ 1818.00

4 Apr 200 3

6 months and 10 days

3/218

May 2001*

25 Jun 2002

9 Oct 2002

15 Jan 2003

58,922.08 + 707.22

30 Oct 2002

21 days

6/189

Feb 2002 (*)

9 Jul 2002

9 Oct 2002

18 Nov 2002

484,975.00 + 7,653.30 + 1812.54

30 Oct 2002

8 days

6/233

Mar 2002 (*)

23 Jul 2002

30 Sep 2002

25 Nov 2002

1,395,270.00 + 22,018.51+ 1818.00

Enforcement since 14 Oct 2002

6/276

Apr 2002 (*)

29 Jul 2002

9 Oct 2002

18 Nov 2002

971,785.00 + 7,987.27+ 1818.00

4 Mar 2003

4 months and 10 days

4/222

Apr 2002 (*)

3 Sep 2002

31 Oct 2002

28 Dec 2002

1,406,492.00 + 17571.52 + 2668.00

3 Dec 2002

8 days

3/283

May 2002 (*)

17 Sep 2002

17 Dec 2002

28 Feb 2003

2,308,783.00 + 13,966.56+ 1818.00

4 Mar 2003

2 months and 15 days

6/309

Feb 2002*

23 Sep 2002

6 Nov 2002

15 Jan 2003

24,243.46 + 360.46

5 Dec 2002

29 days

6/311

Jun 2002 (*)

23 Sep 2002

6 Nov 2002

28 Dec 2002

1,403,543.00 + 12,551.14 + 1818.00

4 Mar 2003

3 months and 26 days

3/272

Sep 2001*

24 Sep 2002

6 Nov 2002

2,803.56 + 169.00

3 Jan 2003

3/271

May 2002 (*)

24 Sep 2002

6 Nov 2002

28 Dec 2002

1,656,695.00 + 12,200.54+ 1818.00

Enforcement since 26 Nov 2002

3/273

Dec 2001*

24 Sep 2002

6 Nov 2002

28 Dec 2002

35,772.74 + 475.73

5 Dec 2002

3/274

Nov 2001*

24 Sep 2002

6 Nov 2002

28 Dec 2002

86,743.81 + 985.44

5 Dec 2002

6/319

Jan 2002*

3 Oct 2002

12 Dec 2002

109560.68 + 1213.61

Enforcement since 21 Jan 2003

4/304,

see 3/2

Dec 2001*

8 Oct 2002

18 Dec 2002

Remitted for a fresh consideration

4/318

Aug 2001*

15 Oct 2002

28 Nov 2002

30,068.95 + 418.69

19 Dec 2002

21 days

4/306

Nov 2001*

15 Oct 2002

28 Nov 2002

38,395.40 + 501,95

19 Dec 2002

21 days

3/357

Jul 2002

22 Oct 2002

28 Nov 2002

922,321.00+ 1818.00

1 9 Dec 2002

21 days

4/332

Jun 2002

5 Nov 2002

10 Dec 2002

1,425,339.00+ 1818.00

Enforcement since 9 Jan 2003

4/334

Jul 2002

22 Nov 2002

13 Feb 2003

1,597,495.00+ 1818.00

Enforcement since 25 Feb 2003

6/359

Aug 2002

25 Nov 2002

13 Feb 2003

1,783,483.00+ 1818.00

6 Mar 2003

21 days

4/424

Aug 2002

10 Dec 2002

10 Feb 2003

1,027,176.00+ 1818.00

26 Feb 2003

16 days

4/432

Sep 2002

10 Dec 2002

10 Feb 2003

1,229,353.58+ 1818.00

Enforcement since 25 Feb 2003

4/319

Oct 2001*

10 Dec 2002

10 Feb 2003

94,942.79 + 1,063.89

26 Feb 2003

16 days

4/409

Mar 2002*

24 Dec 2002

11 Feb 2003

62,546.88 + 736.39

26 Feb 2003

15 days

3/458

Sep 2002

9 Jan 200 3

11 Feb 2003

891,401.00 + 1818.00

4 Mar 2003

21 days

4/61

Dec 2002 (*)

18 Mar 2003

10 Jun 2003

9 0ct 2003

1,542,333.00 + 9,583.59

6/108

Jan 2003 *

12 May 2003

7 Jul 2003

22 Sep 2003

7,412.44

3/121

Feb 2003 (*)

27 May 2003

14 Aug 2003

1 Oct 2003

490,063.00 + 4,285.70

3/128

Feb 2003 (*)

10 Jun 2003

29 Oct 2003

4 Mar 2004

405,439.00 + 3,732.00

3/134

Mar 2003 (*)

17 Jun 2003

28 Jul 2003

17 Sep 2003

572,351.00 + 3,161.26

4/176

Apr 2003 (*)

25 Jul 2003

7 Oct 2003

19 Feb 2004

874,741.00 + 7,247.17

6/149

Apr 2003 *

31 Jul 2003

7 Oct 2003

5,205.89

3/156

May 2003 (*)

21 Aug 2003

28 Oct 2003

11 Mar 2004

1,783,796.00 + 13,136.56

3/173

May 2003 (*)

2 Sep 2003

28 Oct 2003

11 Mar 2004

882,009.00 + 6,495.59

3/206

Jun 2003 (*)

23 Sep 2003

4 Dec 2003

8 Apr 2004

202,542.00 + 1,584.82

3/178

Mar 2002 *

17 Oct 2003

16 Dec 2003

29 Apr 2004

125,460.82

3/179

May 2002 *

17 Oct 2003

10 Dec 2003

29 Apr 2004

72,726.29

3/186

Jun 2002 *

17 Oct 2003

2 Dec 2003

125,172.23

4/193

Dec 2002 *

20 Oct 2003

16 Dec 2003

29 Apr 2004

31,442.27

4/194

Nov 2002 *

20 Oct 2003

24 Dec 2003

20 May 2004

29,489.71

6/218

Aug 2002 *

20 Oct 2003

16 Dec 2003

20 May 2004

72,532.39

3/199

Jul 2002 *

24 Oct 2003

16 Dec 2003

22 Apr 2004

75,200.75

3/202

Aug 2002 *

24 Oct 2003

10 Dec 2003

29 Apr 2004

137,909.66

3/208

Apr 2002 *

24 Oct 2003

10 Dec 2003

29 Apr 2004

167,299.33

3/208

Jan 2003 *

28 Oct 2003

10 Dec 2003

15,011.36

3/221

Oct 2003 *

28 Oct 2003

12 Jan 2004

20 May 2004

41,138.87

3/222

Sep 2002 *

28 Oct 2003

12 Jan 2004

20 May 2004

58,283.58

4/284

Jul 2003 (*)

31 Oct 2003

23 Dec 2003

20 May 2004

1,591,575.00 + 12,453.53

6/222

Apr 2002 *

3 Nov 2003

16 Dec 2003

20 May 2004

114,775.97

6/223

Oct 2002 *

3 Nov 2003

16 Dec 2003

22 Apr 2004

91,622.87

6/224

Nov 2002 *

3 Nov 2003

16 Dec 2003

22 Apr 2004

65,148.79

3/278

Jul 2003 (*)

4 Nov 2003

23 Dec 2003

20 May 2004

563,753.00 + 4,021.95

3/279

May 2002 *

4 Nov 2003

2 Dec 2003

8 Apr 2004

210,006.90

6/284

Jul 2002 *

6 Nov 2003

23 Dec 2003

29 Apr 2004

131,457.90

6/285

Sep 2002 *

6 Nov 2003

23 Dec 2003

29 Apr 2004

81,715.91

4/348

Aug 2003 (*)

2 Dec 2003

28 Jan 2004

722,184.00 + 6,315.65

4/349

Aug 2003 (*)

2 Dec 2003

28 Jan 2004

1,425,125.00 + 10,167.19

4/410

Sept 2003 (*)

20 Jan 2004

9 Mar 2004

20 May 2004

1,502,537.00 + 17,289.47

3/372

Sep 2003 (*)

22 Jan 2004

10 Mar 2004

20 May 2004

1,005,394.00 + 12,732.64

6/16

Oct 2003 (*)

16 Feb 2004

1 Mar 2004

600,849.00 + 7,743.54

6/18

Oct 2003 (*)

23 Feb 2004

6 Apr 2004

3,160,409.00 + 37,093.68

3/53

Nov 2003 (*)

9 Mar 2004

13 Apr 2004

559,292.00 + 5,792.12

12/46

Jun 2002 *

25 Mar 2004

27 May 2004

112,188.48

4/118

Jan 2004 (*)

27 Apr 2004

1 Jun 2004

3,490,893.00 + 19,558.24

[1] Date with asterisk means a claim for compensation for the delayed VAT refund for the period mentioned.

[2] 1 UAH is approximately 0.15 EUR at present

[3] According to the information submitted by the Government

[4] The applicant withdrew the execution writs thus terminating the enforcement proceedings by the Bailiffs’ office in the case. Later it claimed successfully the same amount to be awarded directly by the court. The number of the relevant new case is given in brackets.

[5] Date without a mark means a claim for VAT refund for the period mentioned; date with asterisk means a claim for compensation for the delayed VAT refund for the period mentioned; date with asterisk in brackets means a claim for both VAT refund and compensation for the period mentioned

Menu

INTERSPLAV v. UKRAINE

INTERSPLAV v. UKRAINE

LEXI