In 1972 the regulations on tax surcharge were introduced. In the new system the sur-charge are imposed by the Tax Authority (skatteverket) and not the Court. Since 1995 the European Convention on Human Rights constitute law in Sweden, which means that Sweden is forced to guarantee its citizens the human rights in the Convention. Article 6 in the Convention states that everyone, in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, is entitled to a fair hea-ring within reasonable time. The Article also expresses the right for anyone charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law (the presumtion of innocence). Article 4 in the seventh amendment states that nobo-dy may be tried or punished again (the principle of ne bis in idem). Another impor-tant principle when enterpreting the Convention is the principle of proportionality, which means that measures should be proportionate in relation to the legal aim. In 1985 the question of the tax surcharge and its compatibility with the rights in the European Convention arose for the first time, when the Swedish citizen Max von Sydow complained to the European Commission that his right to a fair trial had been infringed. However, the court never gave a decision due to settlement out of court. In 2002 the European Court of Human Rights stated in Janosevic v. Sweden and Västberga Taxi AB and Vulic v. Sweden, that the regulations on tax surcharge had in-fringed the complainants’ right to access to court and to a fair trial within reasonable time. In consequence, some changes were done in order to make the regulations on tax surcharge conform to the requirements in the Convention. An analyze is made to investigate whether the changes have improved the situation or if Sweden still is on the verge of infringement of the Convention. My analyses re-veals that the changes only led to marginal improvements. The areas where Sweden could still be in breach of the Convention are the length of the proceedings in the matter of tax surcharge, the lack of subjective elements and the situation where tax surcharge sometimes are imposed when a criminal penalty is simultaniously applied.

<p>In 1972 the regulations on tax surcharge were introduced. In the new system the sur-charge are imposed by the Tax Authority (skatteverket) and not the Court. Since 1995 the European Convention on Human Rights constitute law in Sweden, which means that Sweden is forced to guarantee its citizens the human rights in the Convention. Article 6 in the Convention states that everyone, in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, is entitled to a fair hea-ring within reasonable time. The Article also expresses the right for anyone charged with a criminal offence to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law (the presumtion of innocence). Article 4 in the seventh amendment states that nobo-dy may be tried or punished again (the principle of ne bis in idem). Another impor-tant principle when enterpreting the Convention is the principle of proportionality, which means that measures should be proportionate in relation to the legal aim.</p><p>In 1985 the question of the tax surcharge and its compatibility with the rights in the European Convention arose for the first time, when the Swedish citizen Max von Sydow complained to the European Commission that his right to a fair trial had been infringed. However, the court never gave a decision due to settlement out of court. In 2002 the European Court of Human Rights stated in Janosevic v. Sweden and Västberga Taxi AB and Vulic v. Sweden, that the regulations on tax surcharge had in-fringed the complainants’ right to access to court and to a fair trial within reasonable time. In consequence, some changes were done in order to make the regulations on tax surcharge conform to the requirements in the Convention.</p><p>An analyze is made to investigate whether the changes have improved the situation or if Sweden still is on the verge of infringement of the Convention. My analyses re-veals that the changes only led to marginal improvements. The areas where Sweden could still be in breach of the Convention are the length of the proceedings in the matter of tax surcharge, the lack of subjective elements and the situation where tax surcharge sometimes are imposed when a criminal penalty is simultaniously applied.</p>