Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 162
April 2013
Julius Kloiber Schlachthof GmbH and Others v. Austria - 21565/07, 21572/07, 21575/07 et al.
Judgment 4.4.2013 [Section I]
Article 6
Criminal proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Criminal charge
Determination (criminal)
Tribunal established by law
Lack of right of appeal to court with power to conduct a full review in respect of imposition of tax surcharges: violation

Facts – In their application to the European Court the applicant companies complained that proceedings concerning the imposition of surcharges ranging from 10% to 60% on unpaid contributions by the national agricultural marketing association, Agrarmarkt Austria AMA, had not been decided by a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
In the domestic proceedings, the applicant companies had sought to argue that AMA contributions were levied for financing activities, such as AMA’s quality programme, which were not in compliance with European Union law. After an unsuccessful appeal to the designated appeal authority, the Federal Minister of Agriculture, Forestry, the Environment and Water, they had lodged complaints with the Constitutional Court and the Administrative Court. The Constitutional Court declined to hear their complaints of a violation of their constitutional right to property owing to the lack of prospects of success. Their complaints to the Administrative Court were likewise dismissed.
Law – Article 6 § 1: In line with its judgment in Steininger v. Austria, the Court found that Article 6 under its criminal head applied to proceedings concerning the imposition of surcharges for taxes such as the contributions levied by the AMA. Where a sanction was criminal in nature there had to be the possibility of review by a court which satisfied the requirements of Article 6 § 1, even though it was not inconsistent with the Convention for the prosecution and punishment of minor offences to be primarily a matter for the administrative authorities. Decisions taken by administrative authorities which did not themselves satisfy the requirements of Article 6 § 1 had to be subject to subsequent review by a “judicial body that had full jurisdiction”.
In the instant case the AMA had ordered the applicant companies to pay surcharges and the Federal Minister of Agriculture, Forestry, the Environment and Water, acting as an appeal authority, had decided their appeal. The former entity was a public-law body in which some administrative powers were vested, the latter an administrative and governmental authority. Neither qualified as a tribunal. In the Steininger case, which also concerned surcharges, the Court had found that neither the Administrative Court nor the Constitutional Court qualified as a tribunal since neither had sufficient powers to conduct a full review in respect of proceedings that were of a criminal nature for Convention purposes. There was no reason to depart from that finding in the present case. The applicant companies had thus not had access to a tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 § 1
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41: claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed; no claim made in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
(See also Steininger v. Austria, no. 21539/07, 17 April 2012)

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes