FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 64102/10 Max LARSSON against Sweden

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section ), sitting on 13 January 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Boštjan M. Zupančič , President, Helena Jäderblom , Aleš Pejchal , judges, Stephen Phillips , Section Registrar .

Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 October 2010 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Max Larsson , is a Swedish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Enhörna . He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Frisk , a lawyer practising in Skellefteå .

A. The circumstances of the case

1. Tax proceedings

By a decision of 29 August 2005 the Tax Agency ( Skatteverket ) reviewed the taxation for value-added tax (VAT) of a company in which the applicant was part-owner and over which he was deemed to have the decisive influence. The review resulted in an increase of the company ’ s liability to pay VAT for the months of March, April, June and August 2004. Furthermore, as the company was considered to have given incorrect information in its tax returns, it was ordered to pay tax surcharges in the amount of 122,951 Swedish kronor (approximately 13,000 euros).

It appears that the company did not appeal against the Tax Agency ’ s decision. Moreover, there is no indication that the Agency has taken proceedings before the administrative courts with a view to make the applicant personally liable to pay the company ’ s taxes and surcharges.

2. Criminal proceedings

On 5 June 2007 the Södertälje District Court ( tingsrätt ) convicted the applicant of an aggravated bookkeeping offence ( grovt bokföringsbrott ) and a tax offence ( grovt skattebrott ), which were both related to the above incorrect VAT declarations. He was sentenced to one year ’ s imprisonment .

On 4 November 2008 the Svea Court of Appeal ( Svea h ovrätt ) upheld the District Court ’ s judgment .

On 6 April 2010 the Supreme Court ( Högsta domstolen ) refused leave to appeal.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

For an overview of Swedish law and practice, see Lucky Dev v. Sweden (no. 7356/10, §§ 13-29, 27 November 2014).

COMPLAINT

The applicant claimed under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention that , through the imposition of tax surcharges and the conviction for a tax offence, he had been punished twice for the same offence .

THE LAW

The applicant complained under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:

“1. No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State.

2. The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent the reopening of the case in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case.

... ”

The Court notes that no tax surcharges have been imposed on the applicant in the tax proceedings, whether specifically on him or jointly with the company. Nor has he submitted that the Tax Agency has taken proceedings with a view to make him personally liable to pay the surcharges imposed on the company.

Accordingly, while the applicant has been held criminally liable for the conduct that led to the imposition of surcharges on the company, he has not personally been tried or punished twice. The only punishment he has received is the one-year prison sentence pronounced in the criminal proceedings.

It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 5 February 2015 .

Stephen Phillips Boštjan M. Zupančič Registrar President