Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
KKO 379/2012 AI generated

Finality of prior tax penalty bars prosecution for same tax evasion under ECHR Art 7 Protocol 4.

Case Number KKO 379/2012
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court dismissed the prosecution for serious tax fraud regarding the years 2000-2006. The court found that for the year 2002, a final tax penalty had already been imposed for the same undisclosed income. Since the possibility to appeal this penalty had expired, the penalty was final before the prosecution was filed, creating a bar to the trial under Article 7 of Protocol No. 4 of the ECHR.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 7 of Protocol No. 4 of the ECHR; Article 7 of Protocol No. 4 of the ECHR prohibits prosecution for the same facts if a final penalty has already been imposed, rendering the current prosecution inadmissible.

Keywords

AI generated
prohibition of double jeopardy finality of tax penalty ECHR Article 7 Protocol 4 tax fraud prosecution procedural bar to trial

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 7 of Protocol No. 4 to the ECHR

Cited Case Law

AI generated
KKO:2010:82
Finality of tax assessments for double jeopardy depends on administrative review deadlines, not appeal periods.
AI generated
kko-precedent_2010_82
Finality of tax assessments for double jeopardy depends on administrative review deadlines, not appeal periods.
kko-precedent_2012_55
Supreme Court holds tax assessments not final due to pending appeal, allowing criminal prosecution.
kko-precedent_2010_45
Supreme Court dismisses tax fraud charge when prior tax penalties were final under ECHR Article 7 Protocol 4.
kko-other_2014_1271
Supreme Court dismissed tax fraud charge where unreported income was already subject to tax adjustment.
kko-precedent_2010_46
Final tax assessments do not bar criminal prosecution if not legally final before indictment.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

A:ta vastaan nostettu syyte törkeästä veropetoksesta verovuosilta 2000 - 2006 perustui verovuoden 2002 osalta samojen tulojen ilmoittamatta jättämiseen, joista A:lle oli jo aikaisemmin määrätty veronkorotus. Syytteen tullessa vireille mahdollisuutta jälkiverotuspäätöstä koskevan oikaisuvaatimuksen tekemiselle verovuodelta 2002 ei enää ollut, mutta määräaika perustevalituksen tekemiselle ei ollut päättynyt. Koska veronkorotuksen lopullisuutta Euroopan ihmisoikeussopimuksen 7. lisäpöytäkirjan 4 artiklan soveltamisen kannalta arvioitaessa ratkaiseva merkitys on mahdollisuudella oikaisuvaatimuksen tekemiseen, A:lle määrätty veronkorotus oli tullut lopulliseksi ennen syytteen nostamista ja se muodosti esteen syytteen tutkimiselle verovuoden 2002 osalta. Ks. KKO:2010:82