CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 2 décembre 1992

.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 OF                         Application No. 17443/90                       by C.B. and A.M.                       against Switzerland           The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 2 December 1992, the following members being present:                MM.   G. JÖRUNDSSON, Acting President of the Second Chamber                   S. TRECHSEL                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs. G. H. THUNE              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                Mr.   K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second Chamber           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 22 May 1990 by C.B. and A.M. against Switzerland and registered on 19 November 1990 under file No. 17443/90;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:       THE FACTS         The first applicant is a German citizen born in 1948.   The second applicant is a Swiss citizen born in 1949.   Both applicants are business consultants residing in Zurich.     Particular circumstances of the case                                       I.         The applicants were members of the board (Verwaltungsrat) of Cominta Holding, a company dealing inter alia with investments in, and the administration of, commercial companies.         In 1981 the Federal Tax Administration (Eidgenössische Steuerverwaltung) undertook an auditing of the accounts (Buchprüfung) of Cominta Holding.   As a result, on 8 December 1981 the Administration claimed compensation taxes (Verrechnungssteuer) amounting to 2,408,560 SFr.   It stated inter alia that the difference between profits obtained by Cominta Holding from sales, on the one hand, and the commercial value (Verkehrswert) of shares obtained by the company, on the other, constituted a taxable pecuniary value indirectly affecting the shareholders of the company.         By decision of 17 March 1982 the Federal Tax Administration confirmed its claim.   The applicants filed an objection (Einsprache) against this decision.         On 29 April 1982 the Federal Tax Administration informed the applicants that it had instituted criminal proceedings against them on account of tax evasion or tax fraud.         By letter of 5 December 1984 the Federal Tax Administration informed the applicants that it was terminating the criminal proceedings and pursuing the objection proceedings.   The Administration stated that Cominta Holding had in fact been liquidated in 1979; that the taxable performance amounted to 6,728,000 SFr; and that all the persons participating in the liquidation of Cominta would be jointly liable.         By decision of 16 October 1985 the Federal Tax Administration partly upheld the applicants' objection against the decision of 17 March 1982.   Against this decision the applicants and other persons filed an administrative law appeal (Verwaltungsgerichtsbeschwerde) with the Federal Court (Bundesgericht) which the latter partly upheld on 21 April 1986.         Proceedings were then resumed before the Federal Tax Administration which by decision of 18 May 1988 rejected the applicants' objection against the decision of 17 March 1982.   The Administration found that the applicants and other persons were jointly liable to pay taxes amounting to 2,211,125 SFr.         The applicants and other persons filed a further administrative law appeal which, insofar as it concerned the applicants, was dismissed by the Federal Court on 20 October 1989, the decision being served on the applicants on 28 November 1989.   The Court found in particular that the applicants and a third person were jointly liable with the Cominta company for the amount of 2,211,125 SFr, excluding 5% interest.                                       II.         Against the decision of the Federal Court of 20 October 1989 the applicants filed a request for the reopening of proceedings (Revision). Therein they claimed inter alia that in fact no profits had arisen from the liquidation of the Cominta Holding.         On 5 September 1990 the Federal Court dismissed the applicants' request to reopen the proceedings.   The Court also imposed an administrative fine of 100 SFr on each applicant and their lawyer.   The relevant part of the judgment states in this respect:   <Translation>         "6.     Both a party and its representative shall be fined with       a disciplinary fine up to 100 SFr if in their communications with       the Court they breach propriety required by public policy       (Section 131 <recte: 31> para. 1 Federal Judiciary Act).   The       applicants have stated that the Court registrar participating in       the preparation of the case <S.> prepared the judgment together       with the competent administrator of the Federal Tax       Administration <H.-P. H.> and that the 'team H.-P. H./S.' had       succeeded in influencing the Court.   This statement amounts to       a serious defamatory insinuation, which the applicants do not       justify by means of so-called (not mentioned) 'determinations';       the Federal Court has no indication how they reach such a       statement.   The applicants, who have declared the insinuation as       being an integral part of their request, and their lawyer thus       seriously violate the necessary propriety.   They must therefore       each be punished with a disciplinary fine of 100 SFr."   <German>         "6.   Sowohl die Partei als auch ihr Vertreter sind mit einer       Ordnungsbusse bis zu Fr. 100. -- zu bestrafen, wenn sie im       Verkehr mit dem Gericht den durch die gute Sitte gebotenen       Anstand verletzen (Art. 131 <recte: 31> Abs. 1 OG).   Bei der       Behauptung, der an der Instruktion mitwirkende Gerichtsschreiber       <S.> habe das Urteil zusammen mit dem Sachbearbeiter der       Eidgenössischen Steuerverwaltung <H.-P. H.> vorbereitet bzw. es       sei dem 'Team H.-P. H./S.' gelungen, das Gericht zu vereinnahmen,       handelt es sich um eine grob ehrverletzende Unterstellung, welche       die Gesuchsteller durch angebliche (nicht genannte)       'Feststellungen' nicht begründen; das Bundesgericht hat keine       Anhaltspunkte, wie sie zu einer solchen Behauptung kommen.   Die       Gesuchsteller, welche die Unterstellung zum integrierenden       Bestandteil ihres Gesuchs machen, und ihr Anwalt verletzen damit       den gebotenen Anstand schwer.   Sie sind daher je mit einer       Ordnungsbusse von Fr. 100.-- zu bestrafen."       Relevant domestic law         Section 31 of the Federal Judiciary Act stated in the version applicable at the relevant time:   <Translation>         "1.     Whosoever in his oral or written communications breaches       propriety required by public policy, or disturbs the conduct of       proceedings, shall be punished with a reprimand or a disciplinary       fine of up to 100 SFr.         2.      Both the party and its representative may be punished by       means of a disciplinary fine of up to 200 SFr, in case of relapse       up to 500 SFr, on account of malevolent or wanton conduct of the       proceedings."   <German>         "1.     Wer im mündlichen oder schriftlichen Geschäftsverkehr den       durch die gute Sitte gebotenen Anstand verletzt oder den       Geschäftsgang stört, ist mit einem Verweis oder mit Ordnungsbusse       bis auf 100 Franken zu bestrafen.         2.      Wegen böswilliger oder mutwilliger Prozessführung kann       sowohl die Partei als deren Vertreter mit einer Ordnungsbusse bis       auf 200 Franken und bei Rückfall bis auf 500 Franken bestraft       werden."     COMPLAINTS         The applicants complain under Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention of the unfairness of the proceedings.         The applicants allege that because the tax authorities did not succeed in instituting criminal proceedings against them, they started other proceedings in which the applicants now had to prove that they were innocent.   The applicants complain inter alia that the proceedings before the Federal Court were not conducted in public; that they could not consult the case-file; that the court registrar dealing with the case was biased; and that the judgment of the Federal Court contained contradictions.         The applicants also complain that the Federal Court in its decision of 5 September 1990 imposed a fine on the applicants in secret proceedings and in violation of fundamental principles.   There was no possibility of appeal.     THE LAW   1.     The applicants raise various complaints under Articles 6 and 7 (Art. 6, 7) of the Convention about the unfairness of the proceedings before the Federal Court.         Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), first sentence, of the Convention states:                "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations       or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to       a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial       tribunal established by law."         Article 7 para. 1 (Art. 7-1) of the Convention states:                "No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on       account of any act or omission which did not constitute a       criminal offence under national or international law at the time       when it was committed.   Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed       than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence       was committed."     2.     The Commission has first examined under these provisions the applicants' complaints about the unfairness of the proceedings leading to the Federal Court's decisions of 20 October 1989.         The Commission notes that the applicants' complaints are not directed against the criminal tax proceedings instituted against them. Indeed, these proceedings, which were instituted on 29 April 1982, were eventually discontinued on 5 December 1984.         It follows that the proceedings at issue did not concern "the determination of (any) criminal charge" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, nor did they relate to a "criminal offence" within the meaning of Article 7 para. 1 (Art. 7-1) of the Convention.         An issue arises whether the proceedings related to "the determination of (the applicants') civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.         The Commission notes that the proceedings about which the applicants are complaining concern the assessment of the compensation taxes due by the company in question, the amount of which the applicants dispute.         However, according to the Commission's constant case-law, in proceedings concerning the assessment and determination of taxes the "rights" of the applicants involved are not of a "civil" nature as required by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (see No. 11189/84, Dec. 11.12.86, D.R. 50 p. 121 with further references).         It follows that the proceedings at issue did not concern the "determination of (the applicants') civil rights and obligations" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.         It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.     3.     The Commission has next examined the applicants' complaints of the unfairness of the proceedings leading to the decision of the Federal Court of 5 September 1990.    However, these proceedings concerned the reopening of previous proceedings and did not involve the determination of a civil right or a criminal charge against the applicant within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (see No. 7761/77, Dec. 8.5.78, D.R. 14 p. 171).         It follows that this part of the application is also incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   4.     The applicants also complain under Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention that the Federal Court in its decision of 5 September 1990 imposed a fine on each of them without having conducted a hearing and in violation of fundamental principles.    There was no possibility of an appeal.         With regard to the applicants' complaints the Commission considers that further information is required and that the Government's observations on the application should be obtained under Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure. Accordingly, the Commission reserves the examination of this part of the application.           For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority,         1.      DECIDES TO ADJOURN THE EXAMINATION OF THE APPLICANTS'              COMPLAINT ABOUT THE PROCEEDINGS REGARDING THE FINE              IMPOSED ON THEM BY THE FEDERAL COURT IN ITS DECISION OF              5 SEPTEMBER 1990;         2.      DECLARES INADMISSIBLE THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION.     Secretary to the Second Chamber   Acting President of the Second Chamber             (K. ROGGE)                         (G. JÖRUNDSSON)