Article 50 - Right not to be tried or punished twice in criminal proceedings for the same criminal offence
Article 52 - Scope and interpretation
Key facts of the case:
B.D. was fined in administrative proceedings for submitting falsified VAT invoices to the tax authorities and for non-payment of VAT within the deadline established by law during the period from May to December 2015. After payment of the administrative fine, B.D. continued to submit falsified VAT invoices. Criminal proceedings were initiated for acts committed during the period from January 2015 to May 2016. Thereby, the criminal case included both the new falsified VAT invoices and the ones for which an administrative fine had already been imposed, i.e., for the actions of the period from May to December of 2015.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
Whether a person can be criminally prosecuted for the same act for which an administrative fine was imposed?
Outcome of the case:
The court ruled that, in this case, there are no grounds to allow criminal prosecution for acts for which a person has been punished with an administrative fine. The public interest in collecting taxes does not constitute a basis for cumulative prosecution. Accordingly, the charges regarding the invoices issued during the period from May to December 2015 were dropped, and B.D. was criminally prosecuted only for the acts for which administrative sanction had not been imposed.
17. By applying administrative sanctions and criminal liability for crimes in the field of VAT, the aim is to ensure the collection of this tax and fight against fraud, thus implementing the law of the European Union (Council Directive 2006/112/EC of November 28, 2006, on the common system of value added tax 2 and Articles 273, Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). Therefore, the requirements of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 50 of which also enshrines the principle of non bis in idem, and their interpretations in the practice of the CJEU are also applicable in the criminal case under consideration (e.g. CJEU decision of March 20, 2018, in the case of Menci, C-524/ 15, 18-24 points and they refer to the practice of this Court).
30. The decisions of the CJEU indicate, among other things, that the limitation of the principle of non bis in idem enshrined in Article 50 of the Charter can be justified on the basis of Article 52, Part 1 of the Charter, according to which such a limitation must be established by law and not change the essence of the restricted right; based on the principle of proportionality, the restriction is possible only when it is necessary and truly meets the common interests recognised by the Union or is necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of others. The CJEU has clarified that Article 50 of the Charter does not prohibit the application of national legal acts, according to which criminal prosecution may be initiated against a person who has not paid VAT on time, even though that person has already been subject to an administrative sanction for the same offence if these legal acts: 1) pursue an objective of general interest which may justify such cumulative application of prosecutions and sanctions, that is to combat VAT crimes, but those prosecutions and sanctions must have additional objectives; 2) establishes safeguards for ensuring that the cumulative application of processes is coordinated so that the additional burden on the person punished does not exceed what is strictly necessary, and 3) establishes safeguards for ensuring that the severity of any sanction imposed is limited to what is strictly necessary considering the gravity of the offence committed.
17. Taikant administracines sankcijas ir baudžiamąją atsakomybę už nusikaltimus PVM srityje, siekiama užtikrinti šio mokesčio surinkimą ir kovoti su sukčiavimu, taigi įgyvendinama ir Europos Sąjungos teisė (2006 m. lapkričio 28 d. Tarybos direktyvos 2006/112/EB dėl pridėtinės vertės mokesčio bendros sistemos 2 ir 273 straipsniai, Sutarties dėl Europos Sąjungos veikimo 325 straipsnis). Todėl nagrinėjamoje baudžiamojoje byloje taikytini ir Europos Sąjungos pagrindinių teisių chartijos, kurios 50 straipsnyje taip pat įtvirtintas non bis in idem principas, reikalavimai, aiškinami ESTT praktikoje (pvz., ESTT 2018 m. kovo 20 d. sprendimo byloje Menci, C-524/15, 18–24 punktai ir juose nurodoma šio Teismo praktika).
30. ESTT sprendimuose, be kita ko, nurodoma, kad Chartijos 50 straipsnyje įtvirtinto non bis in idem principo apribojimą galima pateisinti remiantis Chartijos 52 straipsnio 1 dalimi, pagal kurią toks apribojimas turi būti nustatytas įstatymo ir nekeisti apribojamos teisės esmės; remiantis proporcingumo principu, apribojimas galimas tik kai yra būtinas ir tikrai atitinka Sąjungos pripažintus bendruosius interesus arba reikalingas kitų teisėms ir laisvėms apsaugoti. ESTT yra išaiškinęs, kad Chartijos 50 straipsniu nedraudžiama taikyti nacionalinės teisės aktų, pagal kuriuos gali būti pradėtas asmens, laiku nesumokėjusio PVM, baudžiamasis persekiojimas, nors tam asmeniui už tą pačią veiką jau skirta galutinė baudžiamojo pobūdžio administracinė sankcija, jeigu šiais teisės aktais: 1) siekiama bendrojo intereso tikslo, kuris gali pateisinti tokį kumuliatyvų persekiojimo ir sankcijų taikymą, t. y. kovoti su nusikaltimais PVM srityje, tačiau tie persekiojimai ir sankcijos turi turėti papildomų tikslų; 2) nustatytos taisyklės, užtikrinančios kumuliatyvaus procesų taikymo derinimą, kad papildoma našta suinteresuotiesiems asmenims neviršytų to, kas griežtai būtina, ir 3) leidžiančios užtikrinti, kad visų skirtų sankcijų griežtumas būtų apribotas iki to, kas griežtai būtina, palyginti su padaryto nusikaltimo sunkumu.
