Communicated on 15 September 2020 Published on 5 October 2020

THIRD SECTION

Application no. 14914/17 GOTALIMPA, LDA. against Portugal lodged on 16 February 2017

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns access by the Tax Authority (“ Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira ”) to the identity and bank information of the recipients of bank cheques ( cheques ao portador ) issued by the applicant, within the framework of a criminal investigation opened against it .

The applicant lodged a motion with the public prosecutor in charge of the proceedings to have the Tax Authority ’ s access to the identity and bank information of the recipients of the applicant ’ s bank cheques declared illegal on the ground that it lacked the required authorisation from the public prosecutor .

On 9 December 2016 the public prosecutor dismissed the motion, explaining that the Tax Authority ’ s access to the identity and bank information of the applicant ’ s bank cheque recipients had been a mere procedural irregularity which could thus be rectified. For this purpose, the public prosecutor issued the missing authorisation. The applicant was unable to appeal against this decision.

Invoking Article 8 §§ 1 and 2, the applicant complains of the Tax Authority ’ s access to the company ’ s bank cheques without the prior authorisation of the public prosecutor. Under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention it also complains of the absence of a domestic remedy in this respect.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Can the bank cheques at issue be regarded as constituting an element of the applicant ’ s “private life”, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention (see M.N. and Others v. San Marino, no. 28005/12, § 51, 7 July 2015, and Brito Ferrinho Bexiga Villa-Nova v. Portugal, no. 69436/10, §§ 42-44, 1 December 2015)?

2. If so, did the Tax Authority ’ s access to the identity and bank information of the applicant ’ s bank cheque recipients constitute an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for its private life, within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention? If so, was the interference “in accordance with law”, did it pursue a legitimate aim, and was it proportionate to the aim pursued as required by Article 8 § 2 (see M.N. and Others, cited above, § 71)?

3. Did the applicant have at its disposal an effective domestic remedy for its Convention complaints under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? In particular, does Portuguese law allow for an appeal against the public prosecutor ’ s decision under Article 79 § 1 (d) of the General Framework for Credit Institutions and Financial companies (“RGICSF”) (see, mutatis mutandis, Xavier Da Silveira v. France, no. 43757/05, § 44, 21 January 2010, and M.N. and Others, cited above, §§ 73 and 78)?

4. Does the application give rise to a separate issue under Article 6 of the Convention? If so, has there been a violation of that provision?