The Revenue Commissioners is examining the implications of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that the publication of a Hungarian businessman’s personal details on a tax defaulters’ list was a breach of his right to privacy.
Since 1983 the Irish Revenue has been publishing a quarterly list of tax defaulters, giving the name, address and settlement details for every case where a settlement exceeded €50,000, the taxpayer did not make a qualifying disclosure and other criteria.
However, in a ruling in March by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, the court found in favour of an unnamed Hungarian businessman who complained about his details being published by the Hungarian tax authorities following his being hit with a tax bill of more than €1.2 million, including interest and fines, following a tax inspection.
The man complained that the publication was a breach of his right to privacy under article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights, to which Ireland is a signatory.
Markets in Vienna or Christmas at The Shelbourne? 10 holiday escapes over the festive season
Ciara Mageean: ‘I just felt numb. It wasn’t even sadness, it was just emptiness’
Stealth sackings: why do employers fire staff for minor misdemeanours?
Carl and Gerty Cori: a Nobel Prizewinning husband and wife team
In the case the businessman said the aim of publication was “shaming” and that listing people was by definition a negative action, according the judgment.
“This public shaming list was a modern form of pillory, was extremely humiliating and caused huge distress. During the hearing the applicant stated that his teenage son and one of the latter’s friends had found out about [the applicant’s] circumstances from the list of major tax debtors, putting him in an uncomfortable situation with them,” the judgment said in outlining the applicant’s position.
For its part, according to the judgment, the Hungarian government said the publication of the list was not motivated by “gratuitous shaming” and that the list contained “factual information without any moral judgment”.
The government, the ruling said, had argued that the applicant could not invoke his right to his reputation as a diligent taxpayer “when he clearly had not been one”.
Asked about the ruling on Sunday, the Tánaiste, Micheál Martin, said it had “always been the way” in Ireland that tax defaulters had their names published.
He said he would not draw immediate conclusions for Ireland from the Strasbourg judgment and that the finding would have to be studied in detail.
The publication by the Revenue of a list of defaulters is prescribed in legislation and any change to the practice would require a change in the law.
In its argument to the Strasbourg court, the Hungarian government said states ought to be accorded a wide margin of appreciation in deciding how to regulate tax evasion, especially in the absence of a European consensus.
“The government pointed to a survey carried out by the Intra‑European Organisation of Tax Administrations in 2014, which showed that a number of countries published tax debtors’ data as a dissuasive measure (including, besides Hungary, Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and the United Kingdom). The measure had not given rise to much controversy at national level,” the judgment said.
One of the judges in the case, while agreeing with his colleagues’ decision, pointed out that the reasoning for the finding appeared to be based on the deliberations of the Hungarian parliament in respect of the relevant Hungarian law.
In the course of its decision, the judge pointed out, the court had said “the choice of such a general scheme is not in itself problematic, nor is the publication of taxpayer data as such”.
The case was heard by a sitting of the 17-judge Grand Chamber, headed by Irish judge Síofra O’Leary. The court rejected the Hungarian man’s claim for €10,000 in damages and awarded him legal and other costs of €20,000. The man had claimed €25,200 for legal and other costs arising from sittings of the Chamber (which had ruled against him) and Grand Chamber. His claim included the cost of 106 hours of legal work at an hourly rate of €200, according to the judgment.
