The Court of Appeal recognised that Article 4 of the 7^th Amendment ECHR and Article 50 Charter prohibit double trials and punishments for the same act. The Court of Appeal also noted that, under Article 51 Charter, the Charter applies when Member States apply Union law but does not extend the scope of application of Union Law. The Court also noted Article 52(3) Charter according to which Charter rights having an equivalent in the ECHR shall have the same meaning and scope as those in the ECHR.

The Court of Appeal cited national case law according to which the Swedish system of penalising incorrect tax information with both a tax surcharge and criminal liability was considered compatible with the ECHR. However, the Court continued, more recent ECtHR case law would support no other conclusion than to consider the two proceedings as relating to the same crime. By reason of Article 52(3) Charter, the Court held that the ECJ would likely interpret the law in the same way. The Court of Appeal thus concluded that the imposition of a tax surcharge and the prosecution for tax crime were double proceedings relating to the same act.

The Court of Appeal continued to cite case C-617/10 Åkerberg Fransson and to consider the reasoning of the ECJ in that case. The Court of Appeal held that the Swedish system with both a tax surcharge and criminal liability for the same incorrect information was called into question by that ECJ judgment. In that regard, the Court of Appeal recognised that the prosecution brought before it related to value added tax rules derived from Directive 2006/112/EC. Thus the case was within the scope of Union law, and Article 50 Charter was applicable in parallel with Article 4 7^th Amendment ECHR. 

Citing relevant ECtHR case law, the Court of Appeal came to conclude that the tax surcharge imposed on the defendant was a criminal penalty within the meaning of the ECHR. In light of that case law, and in light of the judgment of the ECJ in case C-617/10 Åkerberg Fransson, the Court of Appeal held that the imposition of the tax surcharge barred any subsequent prosecution for tax crime in respect of the same act. Therefore, the Court of Appeal dismissed the prosecution.