首页> 外文学位 >The progressive inclusion of constitutional guarantees in the administrative sanctioning procedure: From the ne bis in idem principle to the right to not self-incriminate.
【24h】

The progressive inclusion of constitutional guarantees in the administrative sanctioning procedure: From the ne bis in idem principle to the right to not self-incriminate.

机译:在行政制裁程序中逐步纳入宪法保障:从一事无成的原则到不自我追究权的权利。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

This research about the Right to no not self-incriminate in tax law has as a principal aim to focus in the determination of this principle with a transnational perspective. The interest about this subject was due to a particular situation in my country Venezuela regarding the right to not self-incriminate in tax law and the rights that the taxpayers have during the inspection procedure. In this regard, I have made a comparison between the situation in Venezuela and Spain related to this principle in tax law.;The Right to not self-incriminate constitutes a vast subject which has not yet been well defined in the way that other areas of the law have, which have consequences in its application, making it very variable in different judgments.;Therefore I considered relevant to put the basics of the subject in the first stage, in order to start mentioning the fundamental principles that serve as the foundation of the Tax Law to analyze how the right to not self-incriminate is considered in the tax field.;Before focusing in the main subject of the thesis, I made reference to the protection of taxpayers and the current conception about this subject. I considered essential to create a link between the great importance of the recognition of taxpayers rights and the relevance of the acceptance by the taxpayers of tax law.;Moreover, I referenced the General Part of Tax Law in Spain, because it will be the basis for developing the initial research question. In this part it is showed how the right against self-incrimination is closely linked with other constitutional principles.;Then, I made reference to the Fundamental Rights that the Administration must respect during its activity of management of taxes, especially the right to not self-incriminate, which is linked with the other principles as presumption of innocence.;At this point I highlighted one of the most controversial issues regarding the right to not self-incriminate in tax law, which is the possible "contradiction" between the duty that the tax payer has regarding his/her collaboration to the Administration to provide the information required and, the right that the tax payer has to not self-incriminate when he gives the documentation that could be used to represent the basis for his incrimination.;It is important to highlight the differences arising from the separation of procedures: it is considered that if they remain linked the taxpayer can refuse to give self-incriminating information, whereas when the procedures are separate, the taxpayer must provide the information required by the administration but this cannot be used in the prosecution proceeding.;This evidences the clear dilemma that arises between the taxpayer's obligations to cooperate with the administration versus the rights protection during the inspection procedure.;Then, this research referred to the Spanish situation, and then proceeded to study the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)'s case law, in order to refer to the current situation at an European level as a whole, where no treaties provide protection to taxpayers, as well as its importance to solve the situation at a national level, because it can have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the rights of taxpayers regarding the exercise of national sovereignty in situations between countries.;After that, I compared the different legislations regarding the right to not self-incriminate in tax law in Germany, Italy and France. I also made reference to the situation in Venezuela and in the United States of America regarding this principle.;I believe it is very important to take the references from these legislations and make the respective comparison because there are important aspects in each of these legislations regarding the right to not self-incriminate that need considering, for example: the constitution of the different proceedings in each legislation, the respect of the rights of tax payers, etc. are all important aspects to take into account.;Also I made reference to some jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Finally I analyzed the conception of the ne bis in idem principle in Europe and how the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice have developed this conception. I considered important to make a comparison between the right to not self-incriminate and the ne bis in idem principle, because both of them where conceived in criminal matters but due the jurisprudence have been considered in administrative matters, and it still developing because at the moment there is not a harmonized determination of them at European Level. (Abstract shortened by UMI.).
机译:这项关于税收法中不无自认权利的研究的主要目的是从跨国角度着眼于确定这一原则。对这个问题的兴趣是由于我国委内瑞拉的一种特殊情况,即在税法中不自我包含权以及纳税人在检查程序中享有的权利。在这方面,我对委内瑞拉和西班牙的税法原则进行了比较。因此,我认为将这个主题的基础放在第一阶段是很重要的,以便开始提及作为该法律基础的基本原则。税法,以分析在税收领域如何考虑不自我确定的权利。;在重点研究论文的主要主题之前,我先提到了对纳税人的保护以及有关该主题的当前概念。我认为必须在承认纳税人权利的高度重要性与纳税人接受税法的相关性之间建立联系。此外,我引用了西班牙税法总则,因为这是基础用于发展最初的研究问题。在这一部分中,展示了禁止自我认定的权利与其他宪法原则之间的紧密联系。;然后,我提到了政府在税收管理活动中必须尊重的基本权利,特别是不自我保护的权利。 -incriminate,这与无罪推定的其他原则相关联;;在这一点上,我着重指出了有关税法中不自我包含权的最有争议的问题之一,这是可能的义务之间的“矛盾”。纳税人有关于其与主管机关合作的信息,以提供所需的信息,以及纳税人在提供可用来代表其作为起诉依据的文件时不必自我追究的权利;强调因程序分离而产生的差异很重要:据认为,如果它们保持联系,则纳税人可以拒绝作出自我认定。信息,而当程序分开时,纳税人必须提供主管部门要求的信息,但不能在起诉程序中使用;;这证明纳税人与主管部门合作的义务与权利保护之间存在明显的矛盾然后,本研究参考了西班牙的情况,然后着手研究了欧洲人权法院的判例法,以便在整个欧洲范围内参考当前的情况。 ;在没有条约为纳税人提供保护的情况下,以及在国家层面解决该问题的重要性,因为这可能会对纳税人在国家间局势中行使国家主权所产生的权利产生重大影响。在那之后,我比较了德国,意大利和法国关于免税法中不自我包含权的不同立法。我还提到了委内瑞拉和美利坚合众国关于这一原则的情况。;我认为从这些立法中引用这些文献并进行比较是非常重要的,因为这些立法中的每一个都有重要方面不自我保护的权利需要考虑,例如:每项立法中不同程序的组成,尊重纳税人权利等都是要考虑的重要方面。欧洲人权法院和欧洲联盟法院的一些判例。最后,我分析了欧洲一事无成法原则的概念,以及欧洲人权法院和法院如何发展这一概念。我认为重要的是要在非自认权利和一事无成法原则之间进行比较,因为在行政事项中都考虑了刑事诉讼中构思但由于法理学的原因,并且两者仍在发展,因为目前在欧洲范围内还没有统一的决心。 (摘要由UMI缩短。)。

著录项

  • 作者单位

    Universidad de Deusto (Spain).;

  • 授予单位 Universidad de Deusto (Spain).;
  • 学科 Law.;Economics.;European studies.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2014
  • 页码 415 p.
  • 总页数 415
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号