Närliggande

2.In Fransson, the CJEU declared the Swedish practice of pursuing criminal charges in cases of fiscal offences where a tax surcharge had already been levied to be contrary to Article 50 CFR, leading the SSC to follow suit by reversing its previous case law. Predictably, this gave rise to numerous applications for relief from individuals having been previously subject to double sanctions. Considering whether it would be possible to reopen cases already finally decided in breach of Article 50 CFR, the SSC observed that, according to settled case law and established interpretation of the relevant national provision, the conditions for reopening were not met. Under either of the passivism approaches discussed in the previous subsection, this would have been the end of the matter. While the confrontative stance of Ajos would perhaps have been (more) difficult to defend in a vertical relationship, the Braathens approach of leaving to the legislature to provide for adequate relief would certainly have been available. Nevertheless, the SSC took a different course of action, stating that since it was a question of safeguarding rights guaranteed under European law, there may be reason to ‘modify, amend, or set aside’ national law. On this basis, the Court held that reopening of final decisions in some cases must be possible, notwithstanding the conditions laid down in national law. This would be the case especially where reopening would be necessary to stop an ongoing fundamental rights violation, or else where the rights violation had been of a particularly serious character and the reopening of the case appeared a considerably more appropriate form of compensation than other available options. In the case at hand, the Court found the criteria to be fulfilled, citing the fundamental nature of the ne bis in idem principle as well as the social stigma associated with a criminal conviction.s. 226