Malta / First Hall, Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) / 98/2022/FDP

Tanti Antoine vs State Advocate & Commissioner for Revenue
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
First Hall, Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction)
Type
Decision
Decision date
16/03/2023
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:MT:KOST:2023:137749
  • Malta / First Hall, Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) / 98/2022/FDP

    Key facts of the case:

    The Commissioner for Revenue (the “Commissioner”) imposed estimates of Value-Added Tax due, administrative penalties and interest on the plaintiff. The plaintiff considering that the actions of the Commissioner were incorrect, complained to the Administrative Review Tribunal asking to annul or reduce the sums due. The Commissioner, in one of its respondent preliminary pleas, argued that according to Article 48(5) of the Value Added Tax Act the tax payer cannot present documents in front of the Tribunal if such tax payer did not cooperate with the Commissioner within 30 days from the receipt of a notice to provide information. The Tribunal upheld this preliminary plea and dismissed the case.

    The plaintiff appealed complaining that his right to a fair hearing, as protected by Article 39(1) of the Maltese Constitution, Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter, had been infringed. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and rejected the request for a constitutional reference as it deemed the request to be vexatious and frivolous. The plaintiff subsequently filed an application before the First Hall Civil Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction claiming that Article 48(5) of the Value Added Tax Act breached his right to a fair hearing protected by Article 39(1) of the Maltese Constitution, Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter. Article 48(5) of the Value Added Tax Act provides that the tax payer cannot present any documents to support any claim in front of the Administrative Review Tribunal if such tax payer did not cooperate with the Commissioner for Revenue within 30 days from the receipt of a notice to provide information, documents, accounts or records. This means that if the tax payer does not cooperate with any request from the Commission to present the requested documents then such requested documents cannot be presented in any court or tribunal in any subsequent case filed by the tax payer.

    The plaintiff’s claim cantered around the lack of equality of arms in the procedures in front of the Administrative Review Tribunal. The Civil Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction dismissed the plaintiff’s claims on the ground that the plaintiff had ample opportunity to provide documents to the Commissioner and to give a reasonable justification to the Tribunal for failure to do so. In addition, the Court decided that the Charter was inapplicable as Malta was not implementing European Union law.

    Key legal question raised by the Court:

    With regards to the Charter the Constitutional Court examined whether the Charter of Fundamental Rights was applicable in the case at hand.

    Outcome of the case:

    The Court held that Article 47 of the Charter was inapplicable as Article 48(5) of the Value Added Tax Act was not implementing European Union law but only regulates procedures relating to taxation.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    Complaint of the Plaintiff – Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

    42. The plaintiff alleges that he suffered the above-mentioned breaches, however in this instance of the breach of his fundamental rights in terms of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

    43. This Court will thus turn to examine the plaintiff’s complaint in terms of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

    44. Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union stipulates: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the law of the Union are violated has the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal in compliance with the conditions laid down in this Article. Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal previously established by law. Everyone shall have the possibility of being advised, defended and represented. Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such aid is necessary to ensure effective access to justice.”

    45. Article 451 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides that: “1. The provisions of this Charter are addressed to the institutions and bodies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. They shall therefore respect the rights, observe the principles and promote the application thereof in accordance with their respective powers. 2. This Charter does not establish any new power or task for the Community or the Union, or modify powers and tasks defined by the Treaties.

    46. On the website of the FRA Agency (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (Article 51 Field of Application [European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights] (europea.eu)), Article 51 is explained in the following manner: “The aim of Article 51 is to determine the scope of the Charter. It seeks to establish clearly that the Charter applies primarily to the institutions and bodies of the Union, in compliance with the principle of subsidiarity. This provision was drafted in keeping with Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union, which required the Union to respect fundamental rights, and with the mandate issued by the Cologne European Council. The term ‘institutions’ is enshrined in the Treaties. The expression ‘bodies, offices and agencies’ is commonly used in the Treaties to refer to all the authorities set up by the Treaties or by secondary legislation (see, e.g., Articles 15 or 16 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). As regards the Member States, it follows unambiguously from the case-law of the Court of Justice that the requirement to respect fundamental rights defined in the context of the Union is only binding on the Member States when they act in the scope of Union law (judgment of 13 July 1989, Case 5/88 Wachauf [1989] ECR 2609; judgment of 18 June 1991, Case C-260/89 ERT [1991] ECR I-2925; judgment of 18 December 1997, Case C-309/96 Annibaldi [1997] ECR I-7493). The Court of Justice confirmed this case-law in the following terms: ‘In addition, it should be remembered that the requirements flowing from the protection of fundamental rights in the Community legal order are also binding on Member States when they implement Community rules ...’ (judgment of 13 April 2000, Case C-292/97 Karlsson and Others [2000] ECR I-2737, paragraph 37 of the grounds). Of course this rule, as enshrined in this Charter, applies to the central authorities as well as to regional or local bodies, and to public organisations, when they are implementing Union law.”

    47. At this stage it is beneficial to highlight that the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, although it is not incorporated into any specific domestic law, is applicable and has effect in our country. It is clear that on the basis of Article 3 of CAP 460 the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union binds Malta and is part of our domestic legislation. In fact, this was confirmed din Raymond Caruana vs Attorney General (16/2011) decided on the 28th February 2013 where it was stated: “That this Court agrees with the applicant that today the above-mentioned Charter is part of Maltese domestic law that the Maltese Court have to consider and apply in the same way that they do with all other laws that ordinarily have direct effect”.

    48. That in the case C-206/13 Cruciano Siragusa vs regione Sicilia Sopritendenza Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Palermo decided by the Courts of Justice of the European Union on the 6th March 2014, it was stated that: “Under article 51(1) thereof the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing EU law. Article 6(10 TEU and Article 51(2) of the Charter specify that the provisions of the Charter are not to extend in any way the competences of the Union as defined in the treaties. Accordingly, the court is called upon to interpret, in the light of the Charter, the law of the European Union within the limits of the powers conferred on it (see Case C-256/11 Dereci and others [2011] ECR-11315, paragraph 71 and the case law cited).”

    49. There should be no doubt that, when the case related to the application of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, what needs to be examined by our Courts is whether there is a breach of European Union law.

    50. In the case under examination, however, the complaint of the application is obviously not about the working of Union law. In fact, what the applicant is complaining about is the admissibility of proof in front of the Administrative Review Tribunal, which is a very different subject matter. As well argued by the Commission for Revenue, the crux of the applicant’s complaint Article 48(5) of CAP 406 does not implement Union law but only lays down taxation procedures.

    51. In view of the above, Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is not applicable in this case.

    52. Consequently, the Court will accept the State Advocate and the Commissioner for Revenue’s plea in this regard, and will dismiss the plaintiff’s claims.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    L-ilment tar-rikorrent – L-artikolu 47 tal-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Unjoni Ewropea.

    42. Ir-rikorrent sostna li huwa sofra l-istess leżjoni kif fuq deskritt, iżda din id-darba tad-drittijiet fondamentali ai termini tal-Artkolu 47 tal-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Unjoni Ewropea.

    43. Din il-Qorti għalhekk ser tgħaddi issa biex teżamina l-ilment tar-rikorrent bbażi tal-Artikolu 47 tal-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Unjoni Ewropea.

    44. L-artikolu 47 tal-karta tad-drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Unjoni Ewropea jistipula: “Kull persuna li d-drittijiet u l-libertajiet tagħha garantita mil-liġi ta’ l-Unjoni jiġu ivvjolati għandha d-dritt għal rimedju effettiv quddiem qorti skont il-kundizzjonijiet stabbiliti f’dan l-Artikolu. Kull persuna għandha d-dritt għal smiegħ ġust u pubbliku fi żmien raġonevoli minn qorti indipendenti u imparzjali stabbilita minn qabel bil-liġi. Kull persuna għandu jkollha l-possibilta` li tieħu parir, ikollha difiża u tkun irrapreżentata. Għandha tingħata għajnuna legali lil dawk li ma jkollhomx mezzi biżżejjed, fil-każijiet fejn din l-għajnuna hija meħtieġa sabiex jiġi żgurat aċċess effettiv tal-ġustizzja.”

    45. L-artikolu 51 tal-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Unjoni Ewropea jipprovdi li: “1. Id-disposizzjonijiet ta’ din il-karta huma intiżi għall- istruzzjonijeit għall-korpi u għall-aġenziji tal-Unjoni fir-rispett tal- prinċipju ta’ sussidjarjeta` u għall-Istati membri wkoll biss meta ikunu qed jimplimentaw il-liġi tal-Unjoni. Huma għandhom għaldaqstant jirrispettaw id-drittijiet, josservaw il-prinċipji u jippromwovu l-applikazzjoni tagħhom, skont il-kompetenzi rispettivi tagħhom u fir-rispett tal-limiti tal-kompetenza tal-unjoni kif mogħtija lilha fit-Trattati. 2. Il-karta ma testendix il-kamp ta’ applikazzjoni tal-liġi tal-Unjoni lil hinn mill-kompetenzi tal-unjoni, u ma timmodifikax il-kompetenzi tal-unjoni jew ma tistabilixxix ebda setgħa jew kompitu ġdid għall- unjoni, u ma timmodifikax il-kompetenzi definiti tat-Trattati.”

    46. Fis-sit elettroniku tal-Aġenzija FRA (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (Artikolu 51 Kamp ta’ applikazzjoni [European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights] (europea.eu)), l-Artikolu 51 ġie spjegat hekk: “L-iskop tal-artikolu 51 huwa li jiddetermina l-istess kamp ta’ applikazzjoni tal-karta. Huwa intiż sabiex jistabbilixxi b’mod ċar li l-Karta tapplika primarjament għall-istituzzjonijiet u l-korpi ta’ l- Unjoni, b’konformita` mal-prinċipju ta’ sussidjarjeta`. Din id- disposizzjoni kienet abbozzata skont l-artikoli 6(20 tat-Trattat dwar l-Unjoni Ewropea, li jobbliga lill-unjoni tirrispetta d-drittijiet fundamentali, u skont il-mandat mogħti mill-Kunsill Ewropew ta’ Kolonja. It-terminu ‘istituzzjonijiet’ huwa rikonoxxut fit-Trattati. L- espressjoni ‘korpi u aġenziji’ hija użata komunament fit-Trattati sabiex tirreferi għall-awtoritajiet kollha stabbiliti mit-Trattati jew mil-leġislazzjoni sekondarja (ara per eżempju , l-Artikolu 15 jew 16 tat-Trattat dwar il-Funzjonament ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea). Fir-rigward tal-Istati Membri joħroġ b’mod ċar mill-każistika tal- Qorti tal-Ġustizzja li l-obbligu tar-rispett għad-drittijiet fundamentali definit f’kuntest ta’ l-Unjoni jorbot biss lill-Istati membri meta dawn jaġixxu fil-kamp ta’ applikazzjoni tal-liġi ta’ l- Unjoni (is-sentenzi tat-13 ta’ Lulju 1989, Wachauf (5/88, Gabra 1989,p.2609); tat-18 ta’ Ġunju 1991, ERT (C-260/89), Gabra 1991p.I-2925) u tat-18 ta’ Diċembru 1997 annibaldi (C-309/96. Gabra p. I-7493). Reċentement, il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja ikkonfermat din il- każistika kif ġej: ‘Barra minn hekk ta’ min ifakkar li r-rekwiżiti li jemanaw mill-protezzjoni tad-drittijiet tal-bniedem fis-sistema legali komunitarja jorbtu wkoll lill-Istati membri meta dawn jimplimentaw ir-regoli tal-Komunita`.....’ (sentenza tat-13 ta’April 2000, Karlsson u oħrajn (C-292/97, Gabra 2000, p. I-2737 punt 37). Mingħajr dubju din ir-regola, kif asserita f’din il-Karta, tapplika għal awtoritajiet ċentrali kif ukoll għal korpi raġonevoli u lokali, u għall-organizzazzjonijiet pubbliċi, meta dawn jimplimentaw il-liġi tal-Unjoni.”

    47. Hawnhekk, tajjeb jiġi puntwalizzat li l-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal- Unjoni Ewropea, għalkemm mhux inkorporat fil-leġislazzjoni domestika speċifika, huwa applikabbli u għandu effett fuq pajjiżna. Jiġi wkoll ippreċiżat li permezz tal-artikolu 3 tal-Kap 460 il-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Unjoni Ewropea torbot lil Malta u hija parti mil-liġi domestika nostrana. Fil- fatt, dan ġie affermat fil-każ Raymond Caruana vs L-Avukat Ġenerali (16/2011) deċiża fit-28 ta’ Frar 2013 fejn ingħad: “Illi l-Qorti taqbel mar-rikorrent li l-imsemmija Karta illum tagħmel parti mil-liġi domestika Maltija li l-Qrati Maltin iridu jqisu u jħaddmu bħal ma jħaddnu kull liġi oħra fl-ordinament li għandha effett dirett.”

    48. Fil-każ C-206/13 Cruciano Siragusa vs regione Sicilia Sopritendenza Beni Culturali e Ambientali di Palermo deċiża Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tal-Unjoni Ewropea fis-6 ta’ Marzu 2014, ingħad hekk: “Under article 51(1) thereof the provisions of the Charter are addressed to the Member States only when they are implementing EU law. Article 6(10 TEU and Article 51(2) of the Charter specify that the provisions of the Charter are not to extend in any way the competences of the Union as defined in the treaties. Accordingly, the court is called upon to interpret, in the light of the Charter, the law of the European Union within the limits of the powers conferred on it (see Case C-256/11 Dereci and others [2011] ECR-11315, paragraph 71 and the case law cited).”

    49. Ma għandu jkun hemm ebda dubju illi, fejn jirrigwarda l-applikazzjoni tal- Artikolu 47 tal-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Unjoni Ewropeja, dak li jista’ jiġi mistħarreġ mill-Qrati tagħna huwa jekk hemmx ksur li jirrigwarda liġi tal-Unjoni Ewropea.

    50. Fil-każ in eżami, madanakollu, l-ilment tar-rikorrent evidentement ma jirrigwardax it-tħaddim ta’ liġi tal-Unjoni. Di fatti, dak li qed jilmenta minnu huwa nuqqas ta’ ammissibilta` ta’ provi quddiem it-Tribunal ta’ Reviżjoni Amministrattiva, li ċertament hija materja ferm differenti. Kif tajjeb eċċepit mill-Kummissarju tat-Taxxi, dak li qed jilmenta minnu r-rikorrent, l-artikolu 48(5) tal-kap 406, ma jimplimentax liġi tal-Unjoni iżda jittratta biss proċedura ta’ taxxa.

    51. Għalhekk, in vista tas-suespost, l-artikolu 47 tal-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Unjoni huwa inapplikabbli għall-każ odjern.

    52. Konsegwentement, din il-Qorti ser tilqa’ l-eċċezzjonijiet tal-intimati Avukat tal- Istat u l-Kummissarju tat-Taxxi Interni f’dan ir-rigward, u tiċħad it-talbiet tar-rikorrent.