CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 29 novembre 1995

.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. 25602/94                       by A.N.M. & Co.                       against the United Kingdom        The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 29 November 1995, the following members being present:              Mr.    C.L. ROZAKIS, President            Mrs.   J. LIDDY            MM.    E. BUSUTTIL                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  A. WEITZEL                  M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  N. BRATZA                  I. BÉKÉS                  E. KONSTANTINOV                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL              Mrs.   M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the 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 19 April 1994 by A.N.M. & Co. against the United Kingdom and registered on 7 November 1994 under file No. 25602/94;        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 applicant is a machine tooling company in Helensburgh, Dunbartonshire.   It is represented before the Commission by Mr. A.N. MacInnes, an engineer who is managing director of the company.   The facts of the application, as submitted by the applicant company's representative, may be summarised as follows.        The applicant company received at least the following notices relating to rates:   For the year 1989/90, in respect of which a summary warrant was issued on 2 March 1990:   12.12.91    Notice of granting of summary warrant         £52.00 07.02.94    Notice of passing of enforcement of            summary warrant to sheriff officers           £52.00 12.04.94               "           "                       £52.00 09.05.94    Enforcement notice with intimation            of poinding                                   £52.00 22.08.94               "           "                       £52.00   For the year 1991/92, the total rates for the company were £5538.62. A summary warrant in respect of an outstanding balance of £73.64 was issued on 19 February 1992:   12.04.92    Notice of passing of enforcement of            summary warrant to sheriff officers           £73.64 01.07.92               "           "                       £73.64 10.11.94    Enforcement notice with intimation            of poinding        In April 1994 the applicant company received a reply to a query about summary warrants.   In it, the Sheriff Clerk's Office wrote "I note that you have difficulty in understanding why such warrants can be granted without the persons named on them being given an opportunity to defend themselves.   There is, I am afraid, no requirement under Scots law for service of summary warrants. Such warrants can be granted by the Sheriff without service and based on the information put before him by the applicant".        On 30 June 1994 the applicant company received a letter from the sheriff officers confirming that although the company's full rates had been paid, they were not paid within the timescale in the legislation. The statutory addition was of 10% on top of the balance outstanding at the time the sheriff signed the summary warrant.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant company claims that it is being hounded by the local authority.   It considers that it has suffered a catalogue of errors at the hands of the council, which have been compounded by poinding with no redress in law.        The applicant company complains that when information put before the Sheriff by the local council is in error, neither the Sheriff nor the council has any responsibility for its errors, and the recipient has no defence.        The applicant company alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, and also refers to Article 8.   THE LAW   1.    The applicant company alleges principally a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, which provides, so far as relevant, as follows.        "1.    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 ..."        The guarantees of Article 6 (Art. 6) only attach to proceedings concerning "civil rights and obligations" or a "criminal charge".   In a case concerning the operation of the community charge, or poll tax, in Scotland, the Commission has found that neither civil rights and obligations nor a criminal charge are determined by the imposition liability to community charge and subsequent enforcement by way of summary warrant (No. 25373/94, Dec. 29.11.95).        In the present case, the applicant company became liable to rates rather than to community charge, as community charge was a local tax imposed on individuals.   The methods of enforcement of rates are however the same as for enforcement of community charge, as is shown by a comparison of the methods in the present case with those in Application No. 25373/94.        The Commission therefore finds that the proceedings by which the applicant became liable to pay rates, and the subsequent attempts by the sheriff officers to enforce that liability, did not determine "civil rights and obligations" or any "criminal charge".        It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).   2.    The applicant company also alleges a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.        The Commission has examined this complaint as it has been submitted and, insofar as the matters complained of have been substantiated and are within its competence, the Commission finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.        It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the First Chamber         President of the First Chamber        (M.F. BUQUICCHIO)                         (C.L. ROZAKIS)