Analyse
14 juillet 2020

Non bis in idem : La France reste à l’écart de la position européenne sur le cumul des sanctions pénales et fiscales après les dernières décisions rendues par la Cour de cassation française (En anglais)

Bastille Day Newsletter 2020 - Enforcement & Court Decisions

 

Pursuant to the principle ne bis in idem, set out in Article 4 of Additional Protocol n° 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, no one can be criminally judged, prosecuted, or charged twice for the same facts. European Court of Human Rights [1] and Court of Justice of the European Union [2]  applied this principle to exclude the cumulation of tax and criminal penalties.

In recent years, this cumulation of criminal and fiscal sanctions has been a subject of significant litigation before the French courts.

Since 2016, the French Constitutional Council (Conseil constitutionnel) has approved the principle of cumulation of criminal and fiscal sanctions for the most serious cases of tax fraud. It sets out however some reservations regarding the cumulation. For the first time, the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation), in six rulings dated on September 11, 2019 [3]  and October 23, 2019 [4], has had the occasion to clarify these reservations.

The Court has, nonetheless, reasserted that the principle ne bis in idem does not apply systematically to the cumulation of criminal and fiscal sanctions and decided that these reservations were not applicable to the cases in hand. France stays thus on the sidelines of the European stance.

 

I. The French Supreme Court states that the criminal judge can order a stay of proceedings only when the proceedings pending before the tax judge constitutes a serious risk of conflict between tax and criminal decisions

One of the reservations expressed by the French Constitutional Council is that the principle of necessity of offences prohibits a taxpayer who has been relieved from taxation by a final court decision on substantive grounds from being convicted of tax fraud [5]. This reservation led to the question of the obligation from the criminal judge to stay the proceedings until a final decision of the tax judge.

In one of the September 11th’s decisions [6], the company and its director were found liable by the administrative Court of tax evasion (related to declaratory deductions for VAT and abusive refunds of research tax credits), and were sentenced to pay the said eluded taxes and the penalties resulting from this breach. The defendant appealed the decision and requested the criminal judge to order a stay of the criminal proceedings based on this ground.

The Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled that the criminal judge should only order a stay of proceedings in the event of proceedings pending before the tax judge if there is a “serious risk” of conflict between the decision of the tax judge and the decision of the criminal judge. In other words, a criminal sentence can be imposed even though the accused could ultimately be discharged from the disputed taxes. In the present case, there was, however, no indication of possible contradiction between the rulings of criminal and tax judges, as the lower tax court decision (subject of appeal) did not discharge the defendant from taxation on substantive grounds in the first place.

 

II. The French Supreme Court limits the application of the principle of proportionality to sanctions of the same nature and specifies the nature of the solidarity penalty

According to the French Constitutional Council, when two proceedings lead to a cumulation of penalties, the total amount of penalties imposed should not exceed the higher amount of one of the penalties incurred [7].

This rule, known as the principle of proportionality, only applies to sanctions “of the same nature”. Hence, a question arises with respect to the application of the principle in case of cumulation of penalties of different nature, such as fines, tax increases, confiscation measures, ineligibility or imprisonment. Since only monetary sanctions can be compared, the judge making the last decision must carry out a comparison of the criminal and fiscal monetary penalties incurred in order to determine the ceiling’s highest amount [8].

Regarding the monetary sanctions, the Court had to clarify the legal nature of solidarity in the October 23rd 2019 decision [9]. In this case, the company’s director was jointly and severally sentenced with the company for the payment of the fraudulent taxes, increases and related penalties. The Court considered that “the fiscal solidarity stated in Article 1745 of the General Tax Code, which constitutes a guarantee for the recovery of the debt of the Public Treasury, does not constitute a penalty in the meaning of Article 8 of the Declaration of 1789”, so that the principle of proportionality is not applicable” [10]. This position confirms that solidarity is not punitive in nature as “anyone who has paid the amount of evaded taxes and related penalties in place of the debtor, has a recourse action against the principal debtor, and, where applicable, against co-debtors jointly and severally liable” [11].

 

III. The French Supreme Court clarifies what are the “most serious cases of fraudulent concealment of sums subject to tax” [12] where cumulation of penalties can apply

The seriousness of the fraud may result from the amount of duties defrauded or the conduct of the person prosecuted [13]. The various rulings of the French Supreme Court have shown that elements such as the use of intermediaries established abroad, the existence of concealment maneuvers or the amount of duties can be taken into account in assessing the seriousness [14]. For instance, the Court held in one of the September 11th’s decisions [15], that the seriousness of the fraud arose from the use by the defendant of accounts opened in Switzerland for fictional companies registered in tax heavens, and the amount of duties evaded which amounted to 235,580 euros.

 

IV. The French Supreme Court confirms the application of the reservation issued by France to the Article 4 of the Additional Protocol n° 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights to reject the application of ne bis in idem principle

France accompanied the ratification of the Article 4 of Additional Protocol n°7 of the European Convention on Human Rights with a reservation which restricts the application of ne bis in idem to criminal courts’ decisions and criminal offences [16].

The French Supreme Court affirms in these decisions that the criminal judges have to apply this reservation confirming the specificity of France in the application of ne bis in idem principle. The ECtHR has invalidated the reservations made by several other EU countries, but France reservation is indeed still valid [17]. Until otherwise decided, French courts shall thus apply the reservation made to ne bis in idem principle and give it full effect [18].

It is however interesting to note that the commentators expect the ECtHR to decide on the validity of the reservation issued by France in the foreseeable future [19] and to potentially undermine the current position of the French Supreme Court.

Contenu similaire

Publication
Livre blanc - L'enquête interne en matière sociale
15 juillet 2022
Livre blanc Enquête interne en matière sociale
L’appréhension par la matière sociale de l’enquête interne. Dans le contexte du développement de la pratique de l’enquête interne ces dernières années en Fra...
Analyse
Lobbying les obligations déclaratives des représentants d’intérêts en France
14 juillet 2022
Lobbying : Les obligations déclaratives des représentants d’intérêts en France
Mise en lumière des obligations déclaratives imposées aux représentants d’intérêts en France, prévues par la loi n° 2013-907 du 11 octobre 2013 modifiée par la...
Actualité
ABA
6 décembre 2022
Lancement du guide international des enquêtes internes en entreprise
NAVACELLE co-organise le lancement du guide ABA à Dubaï aux côtés de Al Tamimi & Company, Bär & Karrer et Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP.
Revue de presse
Week of 28 November 2022
2 décembre 2022
Revue de presse – Semaine du 28 novembre 2022
Cette semaine vous découvrirez plusieurs évènements judiciaires importants : la Cour de cassation a apporté des précisions sur la qualité de victime d’un acte de ...
Revue de presse
Revue de presse - Semaine du 21 novembre 2022
25 novembre 2022
Revue de presse – Semaine du 21 novembre 2022
Cette semaine vous découvrirez l’ouverture d’une enquête préliminaire du parquet national financier pour détournement de fonds publics. Par ailleurs, vous trouver...
Événement
Ifaci demain en main - vignette
24 novembre 2022
Table ronde – Allégations & Enquêtes
Stéphane de Navacelle participera à la conférence annuelle de l'IFACI " Demain en mains " sur le thème Allégations - Enquêtes, lundi 28 novembre 2022.
Analyse
23 novembre 2022
La CJUE limite la conservation généralisée des données en matière de surveillance
Le 20 septembre 2022, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne a rendu deux arrêts concernant les conditions dans lesquelles les Etats membres sont autorisés à cons...
Analyse
21 novembre 2022
CJIP Crédit Suisse pour blanchiment aggravé de fraude fiscale et démarchage illicite
Le Crédit Suisse échappe aux poursuites judiciaires et accepte le paiement d’une amende d’intérêt public de 123 000 000 d’euros dans le cadre de la 13ème CJIP ...
Revue de presse
Revue de presse - Semaine du 14 novembre 2022
18 novembre 2022
Revue de presse – Semaine du 14 novembre 2022
Cette semaine vous découvrirez trois évènements marquants : la première condamnation en France d’un ancien chef rebelle libérien par la cour d’assises de Paris, ...
Analyse
Autorité de la concurrence - Google
18 novembre 2022
Les récentes sanctions de Google par l’Autorité de la concurrence : serveurs publicitaires et droits voisins
En 2021, l’Autorité de la concurrence a infligé plusieurs amendes à Google pour s’être livré à des pratiques anticoncurrentielles liées d’une part à la rém...
Événement
17 novembre 2022
Identification des acteurs contractuels de la Compliance
Julie Zorrilla est intervenu à la Colloque "Contrat et compliance : les acteurs et leurs stratégies" à l'Université de Nîmes.
Événement
17 novembre 2022
Cambridge Forum : L’assistance juridique mutuelle s’est dévoyée !
Pourquoi se préoccuper des traités d'entraide judiciaire quand le droit local est mondial et que les procureurs échangent des informations sur WhatsApp ?
Revue de presse
Revue de presse - Semaine du 7 novembre 2022
14 novembre 2022
Revue de presse – Semaine du 7 novembre 2022
Cette semaine, vous trouverez des précisions apportées par la Cour de cassation sur la légalité d’une extradition d’un ressortissant de l’Union européenne vers...
Événement
9 novembre 2022
Webinaire : Une approche comparative du secret professionnel dans les procédures pénales
Stéphane de Navacelle est intervenu lors du webinaire Mondaq /Monfrini Bitton Klein sur le "secret professionnel et le "attorney-client privilege" dans les procédures p...