LAZAUSKAI v. LITHUANIA
Inadmissible
András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
1. The applicants, Mr Audrius Lazauskas and Mr Darius Lazauskas, are Lithuanian nationals who were born in 1970 and 1966 respectively and live in Panevėžys, Lithuania and Vicar, Spain. They are represented before the Court by Mr S. Zabita, a lawyer practising in Vilnius. 2. 3. The applicants are brothers. After their mother’s death in 2006, they requested a notary to issue them with a document confirming their right to inherit their late mother’s property. They were issued with the document on 17 July 2006. The document stated that they had the right to inherit the money that their mother had deposited in several banks. On 17 November 2006 a bailiff drew up a factual circumstances statement record (faktinių aplinkybių konstatavimo protokolas) which indicated that 1,043,970 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 302,354 euros (EUR)) had been found in a safe in a bank. On the basis of this document, on 22 November 2006 the applicants were issued with another document that stated that they had inherited LTL 1,043,970 in cash that had been found in a safe in a bank. 4. In 2006 a pre-trial investigation was instituted in order to determine the origin of the money found in that safe. On 21 November 2006 the prosecutor decided to restrict the applicants’ property rights to the money found in the safe and to the money in the deposit accounts. 5. On 22 November 2006 the Panevėžys District Court authorised a search to be conducted in the apartment of the applicants’ mother; the search was performed on 27 November 2006. The first applicant was present during the search and did not have any objections to it; he signed the search report. 6. The national tax authority was informed about the pre-trial investigation and started its own inspection. On 15 June 2007 it determined that no documents confirming the origin of the money in the safe existed. The national tax authority calculated the personal income tax on the money found in the safe; together with late-payment interest, it amounted to LTL 320,533 (approximately EUR 92,833). 7. On 19 July 2007 the Panevėžys Regional Court decided to apply interim measures and seized the immovable property of the applicants’ mother, as well as LTL 320,533 of the money deposited in the bank. These measures were never complained against. 8. On 18 July 2007 the prosecutor and the national tax authority instituted court proceedings seeking to extend the time-limit for their lodging a complaint with the Panevėžys Regional Court about the applicants’ failure to pay the tax due and to oblige the applicants to pay LTL 320,533 in tax surcharges. The domestic law provided that creditors of a deceased person could declare their claims to that person’s heirs or to the court within three months of the date on which the inheritance of the heirs was declared. The prosecutor and the national tax authority stated that they had only found out about the unpaid tax when the national tax authority had inspected tax declarations dated 15 June 2007 submitted by the applicants’ mother. On 31 January 2008 the Panevėžys Regional Court extended the timelimit for lodging the above-mentioned complaint. The court also held that the claims against the deceased should automatically pass to the heirs and that they should become personally liable for the deceased’s debts. The court ruled that each applicant had to pay an equal part of the income tax (plus late-payment interest) in respect of the money belonging to their mother found in the safe of the bank. 9. On 16 December 2008 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance. 10. On 6 May 2009 the Supreme Court held that the lower courts had not respected the principle of equality of arms because one applicant had lived in Spain and his request for the hearing of 16 December 2008 before the Court of Appeal to be postponed had been refused one day before the start of that hearing. Consequently, the case was remitted for re-examination by the Court of Appeal. 11. On 30 March 2010 the Court of Appeal held that income declarations submitted by the applicants’ mother had been examined and that no proof of the origin of the money in the safe had been found; therefore, her heirs were liable to pay income tax on their inheritance. The applicants asked the court to summon the manager of the bank where the money was found in the safe, but this request was refused. The court considered that the manager had no knowledge about the contents of the safe and that to hear him would have been excessive and unnecessary. The applicants also, without providing any details, complained that the lowerinstance court had been biased as it had been discussed in the media that one of the applicants had allegedly been a member of an organised criminal group. However, the Court of Appeal stated that there was no evidence that discussion of that information in the media had influenced the decisions of the domestic courts; moreover, the applicant had not provided any details regarding that alleged bias. The applicants lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court, which dismissed it on 7 July 2010 as not raising important legal issues. 12. Article 92 of the Law on Tax Administration provides that tax surcharges that have not been paid by a deceased person shall be paid by his heirs, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Civil Code. 13. Article 5.50 § 1 of the Civil Code provides that acceptance of an inheritance may not be partial or subject to conditions or exceptions. Article 5.50 § 3 and Article 5.60 § 1 provide that heirs must either accept their inheritance or renounce it within three months of the day on which the inheritance procedure commences. Article 5.63 § 1 provides that the creditors of a deceased person shall have the right, within three months of the day of the opening of succession, to make claims against the heirs who have accepted the succession or the executor of the will or administrator of the inheritance, or to bring an action in respect of the inheritable property. Article 5.63 § 4 provides that the court may extend the time-limit specified in § 1 of this Article, where the time-limit was missed for important reasons and the time lapse from the opening of the inheritance does not exceed three years. 14. Article 5.52 of the Civil Code at the material time provided that if an estate was accepted by several heirs, all those heirs were to be liable for the debts of the deceased to the extent of their entire respective property. 15. The relevant parts of Article 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide that in cases where there are grounds for assuming that there are, on particular premises or in any other place or in the possession of some person, instruments used in a crime, tangible objects and valuables obtained through criminal activity, or items or documents that might be relevant for the investigation of a crime, a pre-trial investigator or a prosecutor may conduct a search in order to locate and seize them. Such a search is carried out on the basis of a reasoned approval issued by a pre-trial investigation judge. This approval must specify what objects are to be searched for. In cases of utmost urgency, a search may be carried out with the authorisation of a pre-trial investigation officer or a prosecutor; however, in such a case approval of the legitimacy of the search in question must be obtained from a pre-trial investigation judge within three days of the time at which the search was conducted. The search must be carried out in the presence of the owner, tenant, or manager of the flat, house or any other premises in which the search is being conducted, or an adult member of their family or a close relative. Article 149 of the Code of Criminal procedure provides that an officer has to announce the authorisation to conduct the search and to give one copy of that authorisation to the person whose premises are being searched. Only objects relevant to the investigation can be taken, and all of the objects and documents found have to be shown to those participating in the search and be entered in the record of the search. 16. Article 6 § 1 of the Law on Income Tax at the material time provided that the income tax could amount to 15 or 33 per cent. 17. Summary of the Supreme Administrative Court of 21 September 2011, compiling case-law related with tax legislation (Lietuvos vyriausiojo administracinio teismo praktikos, taikant mokesčių administravimą reglamentuojančias teisės normas, apibendrinimas), provides that in respect of some violations of tax laws criminal or administrative responsibility may arise. However, the duty to pay taxes and related matters are regulated by tax laws; therefore, the laws on criminal or administrative responsibility are not applicable. 18. Summary of the Supreme Administrative Court of 7 March 2012, compiling case-law related with tax legislation, provides that late-payment interest is intended firstly to compensate the State for financial losses that arise when taxpayers do not pay their taxes in on time. 19. The Supreme Court has noted that the courts, when deciding whether to extend the time-limit specified in Article 5.63 § 1 of the Civil Code, have to assess why the time-limit has been missed, and to adopt a procedural decision on the extension of the time-limit (for example, decision of 14 April 2014 (no. 3K-7-18/2014)). The Supreme Court has also noted that the courts, when deciding on whether to extend the time-limit, have to assess not only the objective circumstances, but also other circumstances of legal importance (for example, decision of 15 June 2007 (no. 3K3258/2007)). The assessment of the important reasons is done by the court examining the case on a case-by-case basis (for example, decision of the Supreme Court of 30 October 2006 (no. 3K-3-546/2006)).