Veeber v. Estonia (no. 2)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law 49

January 2003

Veeber v. Estonia (no. 2) - 45771/99

Judgment 21.1.2003 [Section IV]

Article 7

Article 7-1

Retroactivity

Retroactive application of the criminal law: violation

Facts: The applicant was convicted in October 1997 of tax offences committed between 1993 and May 1995. He was given a suspended sentence of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. The court, considering that the acts constituted an ongoing crime, applied the version of Article 148-1 of the Criminal Code which had come into force on 13 January 1995. Prior to that date, conviction under Article 148-1 could take place only if an administrative punishment had been imposed on the person concerned for a similar offence. However, under the new version of Article 148-1 it was only necessary that the offence had been committed intentionally. The applicant’s appeal and subsequent appeal on points of law, in which he complained that the law had been applied retroactively, were dismissed.

Law: Article 7 § 1 – Tax evasion was an offence prior to 13 January 1995 but it was a prerequisite to criminal conviction that the person concerned had previously been subjected to an administrative punishment for a similar offence. The new version of Article 148-1 of the Criminal Code added the condition of intent as an alternative, so that the fact that the applicant had not previously been subjected to an administrative punishment did not bar his criminal conviction. However, the courts brought under the 1995 law acts which had been committed before its entry in force, on the basis that these acts formed a continuing criminal activity which went on after the relevant date. Many of the acts of which the applicant was convicted related exclusively to the period prior to that date and as the sentence imposed on him took these into account it could not be stated with any certainty that the approach of the domestic courts had not had any effect on the severity of the sanction. Moreover, the case-law of the Supreme Court on the application and interpretation of the 1995 law, which according to the Government made the risk of criminal punishment foreseeable, dated from 1997 and 1998. The applicant could not have expected at the time of the initial discovery of his activities that he would risk criminal conviction, considering the terms of the criminal law in force at that time. The domestic courts thus applied the 1995 law retrospectively to conduct which had not previously constituted a criminal offence.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 2,000 € in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It also made an award in respect of costs.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy