CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 25 janvier 1996

.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 }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                        Application No. 19630/92                                  A. K.                               against                                 Austria                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                    (adopted on 25 January 1996)                            TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                               Page     INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1     PART I   : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3     PART II : SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5                            INTRODUCTION     1.    This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by A. K. against Austria on 13 November 1991.   It was registered on 12 March 1992 under file No. 19630/92.        The applicant was represented by Mr. Adalbert Laimer, lawyer, Vienna.        The Government of Austria were represented by their Agent, Mr. Franz Cede.   2.    On 14 October 1994 the Commission declared the application admissible.   The applicant had initially alleged a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention in that he had been convicted by criminal courts which had been unable to establish essential facts themselves.   He subsequently added reference to Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention.   The Commission then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:        "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to      it:        a.    it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake      together with the representatives of the parties an examination      of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the      effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all      necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the      Commission;        b.    it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of      the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly      settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights      as defined in this Convention."   3.    The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 25 January 1996 it adopted this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.        The following members were present when the Report was adopted:             MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President                H. DANELIUS                C.L. ROZAKIS                E. BUSUTTIL                G. JÖRUNDSSON                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                A. WEITZEL                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           Mr.   F. MARTINEZ           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M.P. PELLONPÄÄ                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                B. CONFORTI                N. BRATZA                I. BÉKÉS                J. MUCHA                E. KONSTANTINOV                D. SVÁBY                G. RESS                A. PERENIC                C. BÎRSAN                P. LORENZEN                K. HERNDL                               PART I                         STATEMENT OF THE FACTS     4.    Between 4 June 1986 and 5 August 1986 the Corporations Tax Office (Finanzamt für Körperschaften), by a series of decisions, re-assessed the liability of a company owned by the applicant and his wife to turnover tax, corporation tax and trade tax for the years 1978, 1980, 1981 and 1982.   The reason for the re-assessment was that the company was found to have declared purchases of trade marks with a view to reducing its tax liability even though no such trade marks were actually acquired.   5.    After the re-assessment to tax, criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant, as de facto manager of the company, for tax evasion (Abgabenhinterziehung), contrary to Section 33 (1) of the Tax Offences Act (Finanzstrafgesetz).   6.    On 16 August 1990 the applicant was convicted by the Vienna Regional Court (Landesgericht), in the second round of proceedings, of tax evasion.   7.    The applicant's nullity appeal to the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) was rejected on 9 April 1991.   The decision was received by the applicant's representative on 15 May 1991.   In rejecting the applicant's nullity appeal, the Supreme Court found, inter alia, as follows:   [Translation]        "... in the present tax offences case, the existence of a sham      purchase of trade marks by the accused is a necessary condition      for the liability to tax as established by the tax authorities,      and the tax authorities' establishment of that liability is valid      for the present court proceedings (cf. inter alia EvBl. 1979/225,      SSt. 48/36).   Accordingly, there is no room for assuming that      such a purchase did in fact take place."   [German]        "... in der vorliegenden Finanzstrafsache [ist] die Fingierung      eines entgeltlichen Erwerbes von Markenrechten durch den      Angeklagten notwendige Grundlage der von der Finanzbehörde mit      Wirkung auch für das gerichtliche Verfahren (EvBl. 1979/225,SSt.      48/36 ua) festgestellten Abgabenschuld, weshalb für die      gegenteilige Annahme, daß ein derartiger Erwerbsvorgang real      stattgefunden hätte, kein Raum bleibt".   Relevant domestic law and practice   8.    On 21 November 1991 the Supreme Court (13 Os 127/90) modified the case-law referred to in its judgment in the present case.   It recalled that the factual element of the offence of tax evasion was specific behaviour on the part of the defendant, rather than the fact that a final tax assessment had been made.   In cases where the actions of a defendant were strongly indicative of his subjective state of mind, to accept the findings of fact as established by the tax assessment was to leave the judge with relatively little to decide.   The Supreme Court referred to Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention, and to a Commission decision (No. 5523/72, Dec. 4 and 5.10.74 [Coll. 46, p. 99]) in which the Commission stated that judges should not "start with the assumption that the accused committed the act with which he is charged."   The Supreme Court recalled that the presumption of innocence is included in Section 6 (2) of the Tax Offences Act.   It considered the possibility of the criminal courts coming to a different conclusion from the tax authorities, and although it regarded this as not desirable, it gave more weight to the principle that the criminal courts should be able to establish truth themselves.   It referred in particular to the different presumptions and burdens of proof applying before the administrative authorities and the criminal courts.   Finally it made reference to the fact that neither the tax authorities nor the subsequent appeal authorities (the Appeal Division of the Regional Finance Directorate (Berufungssenate der Finanzlandesdirektion)) were independent organs, before concluding that it should change its existing case-law, so that in future courts should not be bound either by the amount or the reasoning in tax assessments when determining charges of tax evasion.                               PART II                            SOLUTION REACHED     9.    Following the decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.   10.   In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   12.   Following an exchange of correspondence, the following Declaration was submitted by both parties on 22 January 1996:   [Translation]   "Declaration by the parties with a view to a friendly settlement        In connection with Application No. 19630/92 by Mr. A. K., the parties, with reference to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the European Convention on Human Rights and to the assistance of the European Commission of Human Rights, declare as follows:        1.    The Austrian Government will pay the sum of AS 50,000.00 as      compensation in respect of all costs of the proceedings before      the European Commission for Human Rights and all costs incurred      in connection with the Austrian criminal proceedings, including      court fees.        The sum of AS 50,000.00 will be paid to the applicant's      representative, Mr. Adalbert Laimer in Vienna.        2.    The Government will comment favourably on an appropriately      reasoned request for the conviction to be cancelled as a measure      of grace.        3.    The Government will arrange for the return of the approx.      AS 310,866.40 already paid by the applicant by way of fine in the      case, together with any parts of the fine paid subsequent to the      present settlement.        4.    The applicant declares the above-mentioned application to      be settled.        5.    The applicant waives any further claims against the      Republic of Austria relating to the present application."        [German]          "Erklärungen der Parteien zur gütlichen Regelung        In der Individualbeschwerde Nr. 19630/92 des Herrn A. K. verständigen sich die Parteien unter Bezugnahme auf Artikel 28 Abs. 1 b der Europäischen Konvention zum Schutze der Menschenrechte und Grundfreiheiten und unter Mitwirkung der Europäischen Kommission für Menschenrechte auf die nachstehende gütliche Regelung:        1.    Die österreichische Regierung zahlt dem Beschwerdeführer      als Ausgleich für sämtliche Kosten des Verfahrens vor der      Europäischen Kommission für Menschenrechte und sämtliche Kosten      des österreichischen Strafverfahrens samt allfälliger      Gerichtsgebühren die Summe von AS 50,000.00.        Der Betrag von AS 50,000.00 wird an den      Verfahrensbevollmächtigten des Beschwerdeführers Herrn      Dr. Adalbert Laimer in Wien überwiesen.        2.    Die Regierung wird ein entsprechend begründetes Gesuch um      gnadenweise Tilgung der Verurteilung wohlwollend befürworten.        3.    Die Regierung wird die Rückzahlung der vom Beschwerdeführer      gezahlten Geldstrafe in der Höhe von derzeit ca. AS 310,866.40      sowie der allfällig nach Abschluß dieses Vergleiches gezahlten      Teile der Geldstrafe veranlassen.        4.    Der Beschwerdeführer erklärt seine oben genannte Beschwerde      als erledigt.        5.    Der Beschwerdeführer verzichtet auf die Geltendmachung      allfälliger weiterer Forderungen gegen die Republik Österreich      im Zusammenhang mit dem der Beschwerde zugrundeliegenden      Sachverhalt."   12.   At its session on 25 January 1996, the Commission noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.   13.   For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.   Secretary to the Commission           President of the Commission          (H.C. KRÜGER)                            (S. TRECHSEL)