In cases where the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) recognizes a violation of the right to property enshrined in article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the most impressive amounts of just satisfaction are awarded. In this context, violations of this right in the fiscal domain entail significant expenditures from the State budget for the purpose of providing just satisfaction to the applicant’s victims and, besides, create even more serious financial risks for the State in the future.

The article examines the historical and theoretical foundations of the emergence and development of the ECHR case law regarding interference with the right to property based on fiscal legislation and through its implementation measures, and also cases when violation of this right is recognized in relation to Ukraine, as well as the possibility of establishing new violations referred to this category. The author concludes that the violations established by the ECHR mainly pertain to the eclectic application of legislation provisions by fiscal authorities. Moreover, the ECHR established the presence of violations also in cases where the courts sided with fiscal authorities, and where they supported taxpayers but the authorities proceeded with their practice in respect of the applicants. Therefore, the most efficient general measures aimed at preventing violations of this type in the future should involve improvement of tax legislation quality, enhancement of the knowledge of law and legal awareness of fiscal authority employees and interaction between them and the courts. Furthermore, a group of cases concerning unjustified confiscation of undeclared currency during border crossings may potentially lead to significant expenditures from the State budget for the purpose of just satisfaction payments and requires urgent changes to article 472 of the Customs Code of Ukraine.

Bibliography

Journal articles 1. Baker P, ‘Taxation and the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2000) 4 Brittish Tax Review 30 (in English).