Austria / Supreme Administrative Court / Ra 2019/13/0111

Mag. B; Federal Finance Court
Policy area
Taxation
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Supreme Administrative Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
23/06/2021
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:AT:VWGH:2021:RA2019130111.L03
  • Austria / Supreme Administrative Court / Ra 2019/13/0111

    Key facts of the case: 

    The complainant earned income from renting flats. After reopening proceedings, the tax office issued amended income tax assessments and VAT assessments. On 10 November and 15 November 2015, the appellant filed appeals against the reopening and the substantive assessments and at the same time filed and application for the granting of legal aid (Prozesskostenhilfe) - without citing a legal provision.
    In the contested decision, the Federal Finance Court rejected the appellant's applications for legal aid - which the Federal Finance Court considered to be applications pursuant to § 292 Federal Tax Code (Bundesabgabenordnung). The Federal Finance Court stated that applications for the granting of legal aid pursuant to § 292 Federal Tax Code could only be considered from 1 January 2017 onwards (which is the date on which this provision came into force). At the time the appellant filed the application (which was 10 November and 15 November 2015, respectively, and thus before the aforementioned provision entered into force), applications under § 292 Federal Tax Code had therefore not been admissible "for lack of a legal basis". The applications were therefore rejected. The appeal contested this decision by the Federal Finance Court.

     

    Key legal question raised by the Court: 

    The complainant claims that there is a lack of case law of the Supreme Administrative Court on the temporal scope of § 292 Federal Tax Code regulating legal aid, and that the decision of the Federal Finance Court deviates from the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court on the direct applicability of Union law (in particular the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - CFR) in the absence of corresponding domestic provisions.

     

    Outcome of the case: 

    The Supreme Administrative Court found that the rejection of the application for procedural assistance was inadmissible for procedural reasons: Since § 292 Federal Tax Code had entred into force on 1 January 2017, the Supreme Finance Court was required to rule on the matter ex officio. For this reason alone, the contested decision was therefore to be set aside due to the unlawfulness of its content. 
    In addition, the Supreme Administrative Court found that the appellant is also partially correct (namely in respect to the VAT) with the argument that the right to legal aid arises directly from Article 47 CFR, even in the absence of a "domestic legal basis" and thus irrespective of the question of the applicability of § 292 Federal Tax Code.
    The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that while tax proceedings do not fall within the scope of application of Article 6 (1) ECHR, the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter must be respected "when implementing Union law" according to Article 51 (1) CFR. As VAT proceedings fall within the scope of application of Union law according to the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court, the procedural guarantees resulting from Article 47 CFR, such as the right to legal aid, must be taken into account for such tax proceedings. In the absence of specific national provisions implementing the procedural guarantees of the CFR within the scope of application of Union law, the assertion of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the CFR can be directly based on Article 47 CFR. This also applies in particular to the right to legal aid.

    The Supreme Administrative Court set aside the contested decision on the grounds that its content is unlawful. The state shall reimburse the party filing the appeal with the amount of € 1,106.40 within two weeks.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    (9) With regard to the admissibility of the appeal, it is argued, inter alia - summarised to the essentials - that there is a lack of case law of the Supreme Administrative Court on the temporal scope of application of the provision of § 292 Federal Tax Code regulating procedural assistance, and that the decision of the Federal Finance Court also deviates from the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court on the direct applicability of Union law (in particular the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - CFR) in the absence of corresponding domestic provisions.

    ...

    (17) In addition, the appellant is also partially correct - with regard to VAT - with the argument that the right to legal aid arises directly from Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in any case, thus also in the absence of a "domestic legal basis" and thus irrespective of the question of the applicability of § 292 Federal Tax Code.

    (18) While tax proceedings - as correctly stated in the appeal - do not fall within the scope of application of Art. 6 para. 1 ECHR (cf. VwGH 19.10.2016, Ro 2014/15/0019, 0020; 28.5.2015, 2012/15/0167; 4.9.2014, 2013/15/0291, 0292, VwSlg. 8936/F; 23.1.2013, 2010/15/0196, VwSlg. 8780/F), according to Art. 51 para. 1 CFR, "when Union law is implemented" the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter must be respected; this applies in all situations governed by Union law, but not outside them (see ECJ 6.10.2015, C-650/13, Delvigne, para. 26; 27.3.2014, C-265/13, Torralbo Marcos, para. 29; 26.2.2013, C-617/10, Åkerberg Fransson, para. 17 ff). The implementation of directive law transposed into national law by the Member States belongs in any case and without any doubt to the central part of the scope of application of Union law (cf. VwGH 23.1.2013, 2010/15/0196, VwSlg. 8780/F). VAT proceedings - as in the present appeal case - therefore fall within the scope of application of Union law according to the case law of the Supreme Administrative Court (cf. VwGH 19.3.2013, 2012/15/0021, 0022), which means that the procedural guarantees resulting from Art. 47 CFR, such as the right to legal aid, must be taken into account for such tax proceedings.

    (19) In the absence of specific national provisions implementing the procedural guarantees of the CFR within the scope of application of Union law, the assertion of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the CFR can be based directly on Article 47 CFR. This also applies in particular to the right to legal aid (cf. VwGH 3.9.2015, Ro 2015/21/0032; Storr, in Fischer/Pabel/Raschauer, Handbuch der Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit [2014], para 27; N. Raschauer/Sander/Schlögl in Holoubek/Lienbacher, GRC-Kommentar [2014] Art. 47 Rz 59; Ellinger/Sutter/Urtz, BAO3, § 292 note 1, with reference to the explanatory notes to the Federal Act introducing § 8a VwGVG [BGBl. I Nr. 24/2017], ErlRV 1255 BlgNR 25. GP 5).

    (20) By rejecting the appellant's application for legal aid in the appeal proceedings with regard to VAT without examining the content - and after establishing the necessary facts - whether procedural assistance ("legal aid") is to be granted in direct application of Article 47 CFR, the Federal Finance Court also charged the contested decision with unlawfulness of its content.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    (9) Zur Zulässigkeit der Revision wird unter anderem - auf das Wesentliche zusammengefasst - geltend gemacht, es fehle an Rechtsprechung des Verwaltungsgerichtshofes zum zeitlichen Anwendungsbereich der die Verfahrenshilfe regelnden Bestimmung des § 292 BAO, zudem weiche das Erkenntnis des Bundesfinanzgerichtes von der Rechtsprechung des Verwaltungsgerichtshofes zur unmittelbaren Anwendbarkeit von Unionsrecht (insbesondere der Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union - GRC) bei Fehlen entsprechender innerstaatlicher Bestimmungen ab.

    ...

    (17) Im Übrigen ist die Revisionswerberin auch mit dem Vorbringen, der Anspruch auf Verfahrenshilfe ergebe sich jedenfalls, somit auch bei Fehlen einer „innerstaatlichen Rechtsgrundlage“ und damit unabhängig von der Frage der Anwendbarkeit des § 292 BAO, unmittelbar aus Art. 47 GRC, teilweise - hinsichtlich der Umsatzsteuer - im Recht.

    (18) Während Abgabenverfahren - wie in der Revision zutreffend ausgeführt - nicht in den Anwendungsbereich des Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK fallen (vgl. VwGH 19.10.2016, Ro 2014/15/0019, 0020; 28.5.2015, 2012/15/0167; 4.9.2014, 2013/15/0291, 0292, VwSlg. 8936/F; 23.1.2013, 2010/15/0196, VwSlg. 8780/F), sind gemäß Art. 51 Abs. 1 GRC „bei der Durchführung des Rechts der Union“ die durch die Charta garantierten Grundrechte zu beachten; dies gilt in allen unionsrechtlich geregelten Fallgestaltungen, aber nicht außerhalb derselben (vgl. EuGH 6.10.2015, C-650/13, Delvigne, Rn. 26; 27.3.2014, C-265/13, Torralbo Marcos, Rn. 29; 26.2.2013, C-617/10, Åkerberg Fransson, Rn. 17 ff). Die Vollziehung von durch die Mitgliedstaaten in innerstaatliches Recht umgesetztem Richtlinienrecht gehört jedenfalls und ohne jeden Zweifel zum zentralen Teil des Anwendungsbereichs des Unionsrechts (vgl. VwGH 23.1.2013, 2010/15/0196, VwSlg. 8780/F). Umsatzsteuerverfahren - wie im gegenständlichen Revisionsfall - fallen daher nach der Rechtsprechung des Verwaltungsgerichthofes in den Anwendungsbereich des Unionsrechts (vgl. VwGH 19.3.2013, 2012/15/0021, 0022), womit für solche Abgabenverfahren auf die sich aus Art. 47 GRC ergebenden Verfahrensgarantien, wie etwa das Recht auf Prozesskostenhilfe, Bedacht zu nehmen ist.

    (19) Fehlen im Anwendungsbereich des Unionsrechts spezifische innerstaatliche, die Verfahrensgarantien der GRC umsetzende Normen, kann die Geltendmachung der durch die GRC garantierten Grundrechte unmittelbar auf Art. 47 GRC gestützt werden. Dies gilt insbesondere auch für den Anspruch auf Prozesskostenhilfe (vgl. VwGH 3.9.2015, Ro 2015/21/0032; Storr, in Fischer/Pabel/Raschauer, Handbuch der Verwaltungsgerichtsbarkeit [2014], Rz 27; N. Raschauer/Sander/Schlögl in Holoubek/Lienbacher, GRC-Kommentar [2014] Art. 47 Rz 59; Ellinger/Sutter/Urtz, BAO3, § 292 Anm 1, mit Hinweis auf die Erläuterungen zum Bundesgesetz, mit dem § 8a VwGVG eingeführt wurde [BGBl. I Nr. 24/2017], ErlRV 1255 BlgNR 25. GP 5).

    (20) Indem das Bundesfinanzgericht den Antrag der Revisionswerberin auf Gewährung von Verfahrenshilfe im Beschwerdeverfahren hinsichtlich der Umsatzsteuer zurückgewiesen hat, ohne inhaltlich - und nach Feststellung der dazu erforderlichen Tatsachen - zu prüfen, ob in unmittelbarer Anwendung des Art. 47 GRC Verfahrenshilfe („Prozesskostenhilfe“) zu gewähren ist, hat es den angefochtenen Beschluss auch insofern mit Rechtswidrigkeit seines Inhaltes belastet.