Nature of Charge for Breach of Budgetary Discipline from Czech Perspective

• Autorzy: Tomáš Sejkora
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

This article is focused on the issue of the imposition of the charge for the breach of the budgetary discipline and its nature as a criminal sanction for the purposes of the application of articles 6 and 7 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms. The author familiarizes the reader with the basics of the Czech regulation, pointing out the specific issue related to the recipients of public subsidies. In this case, the Czech legislator must deal with the issue of the competed public authorities because particular breach of the budgetary discipline can be sanctioned also by a fine levied by the Office for the Protection of Competition. Otherwise, the current regulation of the charge for the breach of the budgetary does not necessarily be in accordance with the principle non bis in idem pursuant to article 4 of the Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental freedoms, if the nature of the charge and fine is criminal. Therefore, this article is also devoted to the application of the Engel criteria to the charge for the breach of the budgetary discipline to provide an answer whether this charge is a criminal sanction, and finally, it describes from the perspective of the application of the non bis in idem principle, how negatively the imposition of this charge could be affected if its nature is identified as a criminal one. The scientific methods used are the analysis, induction, deduction and description.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Budgetary policy; Criminal Law

PL

Polityka budżetowa; Prawo karne

• Czasopismo: Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: 10
• Numer: nr 1
• Strony: 36--47

Twórcy

autor

Tomáš Sejkora

• Charles University in Prague

Bibliografia

• Act No. 218/2000 Col., on budgetary rules, as amended.
• Act No. 280/2009 Col., Tax Procedure Code, as amended.
• Act No. 134/2016 Col., on public procurements, as amended.
• Engel and Others v. The Netherlands App no 5100/71, 5101/71, 5102/71, 5354/72 et 5370/72 (ECHR, 8 June 1976).
• Bendenoun v. France App no 12547/86 (ECHR, 24 February 1994).
• Stephen Andrew Benham v. the United Kingdom App no 19380/92 (ECHR, 29 November 1994).
• Jussila v. Finland App no 73053/01 (ECHR, 23 November 2006).
• Sergey Zolotukhin v. Russia App no 14939/03 (ECHR, 10 February 2009).
• Nicoleta Gheorghe v. Romania App no 23470/05 (ECHR, 3 April 2012).
• Kapetanios and Others v. Greece App no 3453/12, 42941/12 et 9028/13 (ECHR, 30 April 2015).
• A and B v. Norway App no 24130/11 et 29758/11 (ECHR, 15 November 2016).
• W. B. van Bockel, The ne bis in idem principle in EU law. A conceptual and jurisprudential analysis(1st edn, Ipskamp Drukkers, Amsterdam 2009) 308.
• European Court of Human Rights, 'Guide on Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Right to a fair trial (criminal limb)' (2014) <https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_6_criminal_ENG.pdf> accessed 7 January 2018.
• K. Frumarová et al, Správní trestání (1st edn, Leges, Prague 2017) 400.
• Generální finanční ředitelství, 'Dotazy a odpovědi. Odvody za porušení rozpočtové kázně' (2013) <http://www.financnisprava.cz/cs/dane-a-pojistne/odvody-za-poruseni-rozpoctovekazne/dotazy-a-odpovedi> accessed 7 January 2018.
• M. Karfíková et al, Teorie finančního práva a finanční vědy (1st edn, Wolters Kluwer ČR, Prague 2017) 356.
• R. Seer, A. L. Wilmset al, Surcharges and Penalties in Tax Law (1st edn, IBFD, Amsterdam 2016) 854.
• Office for the Protection of Competition: ÚOHS-R370/2014/VZ-37230/2015/321/Oho.
• Opinion of advocate general Case C-489/10 Bonda [2012] ECR.
• Supreme Administrative Court:3 As 57/2004 - 39.
• Supreme Administrative Court:1 Afs 53/2013 - 33.
• Supreme Administrative Court:4 Afs 210/2014 - 70.

Identyfikatory

DOI

https://doi.org/10.2478/wrlae-2020-0003