SECOND SECTION
Application no. 51269/07
Ildikó PÁKOZDI
against Hungary
lodged on 21 November 2007
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Ms Ildikó Pákozdi, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Igar. She is represented before the Court by Mr T. Brolly, a lawyer practising in Székesfehérvár.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The Fejér County Regional Centre for Taxes initiated a tax investigation against the applicant and ordered her to pay outstanding personal income tax in the amount of 10,961,884 Hungarian forints (HUF) (approximately 39,100 euros (EUR)), a tax fine in the amount of HUF 5,480,808 (EUR 19,500) and interest in the amount of HUF 6,551,884 (EUR 23,300).
On appeal, the second-instance tax authority upheld the first-instance decision on 5 May 2005.
The applicant sought judicial review of these decisions.
On 28 February 2006 the Fejér County Regional Court overturned the decisions of the Tax Authority. The court based its decision essentially on testimony given by the applicant’s father as to the origin of the money in question.
The Tax Authority filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court.
On 12 April 2007 the Supreme Court held for the Tax Authority and ordered the applicant to pay the outstanding tax, the tax fine and the interest. Without holding a hearing, the Supreme Court carried out a reassessment of the evidence and found the testimony given by the applicant’s father implausible. No further remedy lay against this decision.
This decision arrived at the Fejér County Regional Court with a view to its dispatch to the parties on 7 May 2007.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant alleges that Supreme Court’s decision overturning the first-instance judicial decision was unlawful since it was based on the wrongful assessment of evidence, in particular by not giving enough weight to her father’s testimony. She claims that the Supreme Court’s assessment of evidence violated her right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the Convention and deprived her of an effective remedy within the meaning of Article 13 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant complied with the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, given that the final domestic decision was adopted on 12 April 2007 and the application was introduced on 21 November 2007?
2. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its criminal head applicable to the proceedings in the present case, given the severity of the tax sanctions imposed on the applicant?
3. If so, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal (tax) charges against her, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, in view of the fact that the Supreme Court reassessed the evidence in the case without holding a hearing and adopted a judgment against the applicant which was not susceptible to any further appeal?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy