In Agurdino Srl v Moldova (ECHR Case 7359/06) a company appealed against a VAT liability contending that the relevant supplies were exempt under the legislation then in force.
In 2002 the Moldovan Supreme Court found in favour of the company. In October 2005 the Ukrainian Parliament amended the relevant legislation.
In November 2005 the Moldovan Tax Inspectorate applied for review of the 2002 Supreme Court decision contending that the amendment to the legislation should have retrospective effect.
Later that month the Ukrainian Supreme Court accepted the Inspectorate’s application and quashed its previous judgment.
The company applied to the ECHR contending that the quashing of the previous decision to give effect to a retrospective change in legislation was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The ECHR...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In Agurdino Srl v Moldova (ECHR Case 7359/06) a company appealed against a VAT liability contending that the relevant supplies were exempt under the legislation then in force.
In 2002 the Moldovan Supreme Court found in favour of the company. In October 2005 the Ukrainian Parliament amended the relevant legislation.
In November 2005 the Moldovan Tax Inspectorate applied for review of the 2002 Supreme Court decision contending that the amendment to the legislation should have retrospective effect.
Later that month the Ukrainian Supreme Court accepted the Inspectorate’s application and quashed its previous judgment.
The company applied to the ECHR contending that the quashing of the previous decision to give effect to a retrospective change in legislation was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The ECHR...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
