Search

The principle of ne bis in idem, enshrined both in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in the European Convention on Human Rights, has been the object of an extensive body of case law. Therefore, the question this thesis seeks to answer is: ‘what is the current status of the principle of ne bis in idem under EU tax law?’ After the development of a high level of protection regarding ne bis in idem and VAT surcharges in the case of Åkerberg Fransson, the Court of Justice of the European Union took a step back in the Luca Menci ruling, following the European Court of Human Rights, and limiting its previous scope of safeguard. The Menci ruling, however, seems to confront the limitation clause in Article 52(1) and the non-regression clause in Article 53, both in the Charter. It also disregards the possibility of providing a higher level of protection than that afforded by the Convention, as provided in Article 52(3) of the Charter, which seems to have been the best response to the case. This decrease in the standard of protection draws up to the conclusion that the Court of Justice of the European Union should not have taken the steps of the European Court of Human Rights. The current status of the principle of ne bis in idem in EU tax law compromises human rights protection and raises doubts regarding the future application of concurrent administrative and criminal penalties in the occurrence of VAT irregularities.

The principle of ne bis in idem, enshrined both in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in the European Convention on Human Rights, has been the object of an extensive body of case law. Therefore, the question this thesis seeks to answer is: ‘what is the current status of the principle of ne bis in idem under EU tax law?’ After the development of a high level of protection regarding ne bis in idem and VAT surcharges in the case of Åkerberg Fransson, the Court of Justice of the European Union took a step back in the Luca Menci ruling, following the European Court of Human Rights, and limiting its previous scope of safeguard. The Menci ruling, however, seems to confront the limitation clause in Article 52(1) and the non-regression clause in Article 53, both in the Charter. It also disregards the possibility of providing a higher level of protection than that afforded by the Convention, as provided in Article 52(3) of the Charter, which seems to have been the best response to the case. This decrease in the standard of protection draws up to the conclusion that the Court of Justice of the European Union should not have taken the steps of the European Court of Human Rights. The current status of the principle of ne bis in idem in EU tax law compromises human rights protection and raises doubts regarding the future application of concurrent administrative and criminal penalties in the occurrence of VAT irregularities.