The original article argues that restricting appeals against provisional tax seizure is unconstitutional. The Taxation Act permits seizure before assessment where there is justified concern that the taxpayer's conduct will make recovery more difficult or impossible. The authority needs administrative court permission.
The framework discussed in the article did not allow the taxpayer to contest the measure, involve them in the permission procedure or set a duration. Ex parte seizure without an assessed claim significantly affected business freedom, property and potentially the presumption of innocence. The author considered the restriction of appeal and hearing rights inconsistent with the rule of law and effective fundamental rights protection.
The Supreme Court en banc addressed related questions in case 3-3-1-50-10. It noted that rules obstructing appeals might conflict with the Constitution. Courts must disapply unconstitutional procedural provisions where their application would breach fundamental rights, whether on a person's request or on their own initiative.
Continued seizure could become disproportionate if no tax liability was established within a reasonable time or no tax or liability decision was made. The Minister of Justice also questioned an unlimited duration as excessively restrictive.
Procedural limits prevented the Supreme Court from finally resolving all these issues in that case. At the time, the author awaited a further challenge and maintained that restricting appeals against exceptional provisional seizure permission was unconstitutional.