You are here:

Czech Republic / The Supreme Administrative Court / 1 Afs 17/2013 – 43

BS Park II. s.r.o v The appellate financial directorate

Policy area:
Taxation
Deciding Body type:
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding Body:
The Supreme Administrative Court
Type:
Decision
Decision date:
11/07/2013

Key facts of the case:

It was a dispute between B.S. Park II. s.r.o who closed a contract on delivery of electricity created by a renewable source of electricity with E.ON Distribuce, a. s.. The electricity was delivered and B.S Park II. s.r.o sent to E.ON a bill to receive the promised payment. E.ON didn’t pay the whole contracted price. Part of the price was paid to the state as a tax which is required to be paid in this case by s.7a of Act 180/2005 On the support of creation of electricity by renewable sources. B.S Park filed a complaint in the financial office in České Budějovice, but it was turned down. B.S Park appealed to the Financial directorate in České Budějovice. The appeal was turned down too by a decision from 30. 8. 2012, n. 5925/12-1200. Against the decision of the directorate B.S Park II. s.r.o filed a suit in the regional court which ruled in favour of the defendant and confirmed the decision of the former deciding authorities. The plaintiff then seeks a review of The Supreme administrative court. He claimed that the provision s.7a included in Act 180/2005, which orders to pay the tax, is in violation with the Charter of the fundamental rights of the European Union. He specifically mentioned Articles: 1,16,17,21 and 52. However, there was no further argumentation explaining the violation. The Supreme court stated that the regulation is in compliance with Czech constitutional law as the Constitutional court ruled in Pl ÚS 17/11. It was said by this decision that the provision above is in compliance even with the European Convention on Human Rights, for it is a part of Czech law with constitutional value. Provision s.7a is also in compliance with the Charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, because Article 52 states that equal provisions to those in the Convention have equal interpretation and range of protection.