000			02156nab#a2200253#c#4500
003			IEF
005			20180219153656.0
008			171025s2017 NLD|| #####0 b|ENG|u
040			_aIEF
041			_aENG
100	1		_aEndresen, Clement _961812
245			_aTaxation and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights : substantive issues _b no tax, no society _c Clement Endresen
260			_c2017
500			_aAccesible también en línea a través de la Biblioteca del Instituto deEstudios Fiscales. Conclusión. Resumen.
650		4	_aDERECHOS HUMANOS _942446
650		4	_aDERECHO TRIBUTARIO _942375
650		4	_aDERECHO COMUNITARIO EUROPEO _941975
650		4	_aUNION EUROPEA _948644
520			_aWhen the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was agreed, clearly it did not apply to substantive tax issues. The author aims to showthat there is nothing to suggest that the inclusion of the protection of property rights in paragraph 1 of the First Protocol to the Convention represented a change in this respect.In spite of this, there is in the literature considerable enthusiasm for the notion that the Convention is also important as regards this issue. The author examines the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in cases which involve substantive tax issues, and argues that the Court,with the help of the concept of an extraordinary margin of appreciation, has indeed shown great reluctance towards getting involved in these issues.This approach is applauded, and it is argued that the old notion that taxation is a fundamental part of national sovereignty, is still valid, and that it justifies the restraint shown by the ECtHR.The question of legal security for taxpayers . to the extent that this principle is also relevant to substantive issues . must be balanced against the principle of effectivity. Thus, the solutions to legal security issues in this sphere of the law may well differ from the solutions to parallel questions in other legal contexts.
773	0		_tIntertax _gv. 45, n. 8-9, August / September 2017, p. 508-526
942			_cART
942			_z148741
999			_c34318 _d34318