Communicated on 17 December 2014

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 9542/11 Johan ISAKSSON against Sweden lodged on 17 September 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Johan Isaksson , is a Swedish national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Luleå . He is represented before the Court by Mr J. Frisk , a lawyer practising in Skellefteå .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1 . Criminal proceedings

The applicant was indicted on 8 September 2006 for an aggravated bookkeeping offence ( grovt bokföringsbrott ), a tax offence ( skattebrott ) and an aggravated tax offence ( grovt skattebrott ).

On 15 November 2007 the Luleå District Court ( tingsrätt ) convicted the applicant on all counts and sentenced him to ten months ’ imprisonment. The court found that he had been the actual leader and representative ( faktisk företrädare ) of a limited liability company and that, with the aim of evading taxes, he had failed to record numerous business events in the company ’ s books and had made bookkeeping material disappear from 2003 until the company ’ s bankruptcy in August 2005. He was also responsible for incorrect VAT declarations on behalf of the company. Finally, in his personal tax returns for income received in 2003 and 2004 , he had failed to account for income totalling almost 2.5 million Swedish kronor (SEK; approximately 270,000 euros (EUR)). In sentencing the applicant the District Court had regard to the fact that the applicant, by an appealed judgment of 12 May 2006, had been convicted of bookkeeping offences committed in 1999-2002 and had been sentenced to eight months ’ imprisonment, a sentence that he had not yet begun to serve.

In a judgment of 15 September 2009 the Court of Appeal ( hovrätt ) of Upper Norrland joined the two cases and reviewed the judgments of the District Court of 12 May 2006 and 15 November 2007. It acquitted the applicant of one bookkeeping offence for which he had been convicted in the 2006 judgment, but upheld the District Court ’ s judgments in all other respects. The Court of Appeal considered that the applicant ’ s crimes merited a more severe sentence than what the District Court had set. However, it took into account, inter alia , the lengthy proceedings and fixed the applicant ’ s combined sentence for all the offences to imprisonment for one year and six months.

On 7 April 2010 the Supreme Court ( Högsta domstolen ) refused leave to appeal.

2 . Tax proceedings

By decisions of 21 December 2006 the Tax Agency ( Skatteverket ) reviewed the applicant ’ s taxation for income received in 2003 and 2004 (i.e. the taxation years 2004 and 2005) and found that he had failed to account for income received from the company mentioned above. His income was revised upwards by SEK 582,000 and 1,818,990, respectively, for the two years. Furthermore, as the information supplied by the applicant in his tax returns was found to be incorrect and the revisions had had to be made under a discretionary assessment procedure, he was ordered to pay tax surcharges ( skattetillägg ), amounting to 40% of the increased tax liability. The surcharges for the two years amounted to SEK 88,782 and 445,376, respectively (approximately EUR 9,600 and 48,000).

It appears that the applicant did not appeal against the Tax Agency ’ s decisions.

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 complains under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention that , through the imposition of tax surcharges and the conviction for tax offences, he has been punished twice for the same offence .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the fact that the applicant was convicted of tax offences and tax surcharges were imposed on him, h as he been punished twice for the same offence in the territory of the respondent State, as prohibited by Article 4 § 1 of Protocol No. 7?

2. If so, would the applicant be able to obtain redress in Sweden, notably through the remedies established by the decisions and judgments of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Administrative Court in 2013 and 2014?