CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 16 juillet 1987

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY   Application No. 11592/85 by B.A. JUBY against the United Kingdom             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 16 July 1987, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      J.A. FROWEIN                      S. TRECHSEL                      F. ERMACORA                      E. BUSUTTIL                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      G. BATLINER                      H. VANDENBERGHE                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                   Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission             Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 21 March 1985 by B.A. JUBY against the United Kingdom and registered on 17 June 1985 under file No. 11592/85;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS           The facts as they have been submitted on behalf of the applicant, a British citizen born in 1936, who is a doctor by profession, and who is represented before the Commission by Mr.   K. Walsh, an Irish Solicitor practising in Belgium, may be summarised as follows:           The applicant has previously made two applications to the Commission.   The first, Application No. 9793/82, was declared inadmissible by the Commission on 13 March 1984.   It related to the applicant's complaints concerning the discrimination which he alleged arises because of the application of the income tax laws in the United Kingdom when related to the Social Security Act 1975.           The second, Application No. 11254/84, was declared inadmissible by the Commission on 10 December 1984.   It alleged that the Rapporteur did not fully consider the applicant's complaints in the first application and that in particular the applicant's complaints were misdescribed in the Commission's decision on its admissibility.           In the present application the applicant complains that the Commission has misunderstood the two previous applications and in addition, in the second application, reached a decision prior to the receipt of additional information from the applicant which the applicant had informed the Commission would be sent.           In support of his present application, the applicant now submits further legal arguments together with additional information relating to his national insurance contributions made between 1975 and April 1986.     COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains of discriminatory interference with his rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   He invokes Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.           The applicant further complains that the Commission, in his previous application No. 11254/84 which was declared inadmissible by the Commission on 10 December 1984, took a decision on admissibility prior to the receipt of additional information which was to be provided by the applicant.           The applicant also complains that he has been denied, because of the doctrine of Parliament Sovereignty, any effective remedy before a national authority in respect of his complaints contrary to Article 13 of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.       The applicant complains first of a discriminatory interference with his rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).   He invokes Article 14 (Art. 14+P1-1) of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   The applicant further complains that in his previous application No. 11254/84 the Commission failed to await relevant new information which the applicant had told the Commission he was going to provide prior to any decision being taken by the Commission on admissibility.           The Commission finds that the applicant's complaints concern substantially the same matters as he complained of in his two earlier applications, Nos. 9793/82, Dec. 13.3.84 and 11254/84, Dec 10.12.84 which the Commission has already examined and rejected.   By virtue of Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention, the Commission may not deal with any petition which is "substantially the same as a matter which has already been examined by the Commission" unless it contains "relevant new information".           The applicant's submissions seek to restate those made in relation to his previous applications and to elaborate the legal reasoning previously submitted and to show that the previous submissions were incorrectly evaluated by the Commission in its decision on the admissibility of the applicant's first application. It is clear, however, that such submissions do not constitute "relevant new information" within the meaning of Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.           In addition the applicant has submitted details of the actual contributions for which he was liable.   These figures illustrate the precise way in which the matters about which he complained in his first and second applications affected him.   However, in view of the submissions which the applicant made in support of those applications, the mere provision of the figures to which the tax system about which the applicant complains applied does not add anything to the substance of the original complaint.   This material is not, therefore, "relevant new information" within the meaning of Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.           The applicant has also submitted details of the contributions which he has been required to make for the period subsequent to the lodging of both his first and second applications.   These contributions have been treated in accordance with the same principles and legal rules for tax purposes as those about which the applicant complained in his first application.   In these circumstances the contributions for this further period merely constitute a further example of the application of the same legal regime to the applicant as that about which he complained in his previous applications. Accordingly this material does not constitute relevant new information within the meaning of Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.           It follows that the Commission is precluded by Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention from dealing with this aspect of the application.     2.       The applicant also complains that he has been denied because of the doctrine of Parliament Sovereignty any effective remedy before a national authority in respect of his complaints contrary to Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.           Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention provides:           "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this         Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before         a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has         been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."           The Commission recalls its established case-law in relation to the scope of application of Article 13 (Art. 13).   It has held that:           "It cannot be deduced from Article 13 (Art. 13) that there must be a         remedy against legislation as such which is considered not to         be in conformity with the Convention.   Such a remedy would in         effect amount to some sort of judicial review of legislation         because any other review - generally sufficient for Article 13         (Art. 13) which requires only a "remedy before a national authority" -         could hardly be effective concerning legislation.   Without a         clear indication in the text Article 13 (Art. 13) cannot be extended         that far....   Article 13 (Art. 13) does not relate to legislation and         does not guarantee a remedy by which legislation could be         controlled as to its conformity with the Convention."         (Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, Comm.         Report 14.12.79, Series B no. 39, p. 49 para. 177).           It follows that this aspect of the applicant's complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.       Secretary to the Commission          President of the Commission                (H.C. KRÜGER)                       (C.A. NØRGAARD)