CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 15 janvier 1997

.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. 32104/96                       by Ona MACIONIENE                       against Lithuania        The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 15 January 1997, the following members being present:                Mrs.   G.H. THUNE, President            MM.    J.-C. GEUS                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA              Ms.    M.-T. SCHOEPFER, 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 5 June 1996 by Ona MACIONIENE against Lithuania and registered on 2 July 1996 under file No. 32104/96;        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, born in 1941, is a Lithuanian national residing in Vilnius. She owns a firm called "Konstanta".   The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.        Prior to 20 June 1995, the date on which Lithuania deposited its instrument of ratification of the Convention and made a declaration under Article 25 of the Convention, the applicant was involved in several sets of proceedings, administrative and judicial, related to her and her firm's assessment to tax.        On 18 October 1995 the President of the Supreme Court (Lietuvos Auksciausiasis Teismas) introduced a nullity appeal for the safeguarding of the law with the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, asking for the reinstitution of earlier cassation proceedings on the ground that in the previous proceedings the courts had not sufficiently examined the issues of whether statements made by the tax inspector revealed bias on his part, and of the nature of certain contracts which, the applicant had claimed, should have been accepted as constituting expenditure.        On 15 November 1995 the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court granted this request and reopened the cassation proceedings.        On 5 December 1995 the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal. It confirmed the findings of the previous courts, to the effect, inter alia, that the contracts had been antedated and were therefore not genuine.   COMPLAINTS        The applicant alleges a violation of her right to a fair trial under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention. She considers that the courts relied only on the statements of the Vilnius Tax Inspectorate, did not examine the main issues of the applicable law, did not take into consideration the evidence given by one of her witnesses, and did not summon another witness on her behalf, thus depriving her of the opportunity of defending herself.        The applicant also complains:   -     that the Vilnius Tax Inspectorate, when making a tax assessment and imposing fines, did not allow her to be present during the examination of her case, and thus infringed her right to defend herself;   -     that the courts failed to summon the witness whom the Tax Inspectorate had also failed to summon, and thereby infringed her right to obtain the attendance and examination of a witness on her behalf;   -     that threats were used by the Chief Tax Inspector on 27 August 1992 with the aim of obtaining evidence from another witness against the applicant;   -     that one tax inspector was a member of the taxation commission which revised the results of a tax inspection he had himself made;   -     that the judges dealt only superficially with the merits of her case.        As to the hearing of her case before the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court in December 1995, the applicant complains that the Court did not look properly at the main issues of her case, relying only on statements made by the lower instances.   THE LAW        The applicant complains about violations of her rights guaranteed by Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention. She alleges that her right to a fair hearing and, in particular, the principle of equality of arms, was violated by the fact that the courts constantly relied only on the submissions made by the Tax Inspectorate, rejected evidence given before them by one witness on her behalf and did not summon another witness.        Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention, so far as relevant, provides:        "1. In the determination of his civil rights and      obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone      is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by a tribunal      established by law.        3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the      following minimum rights:        d. ... to obtain the attendance and examination of      witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as      witnesses against him."   1.    The Commission recalls that it may only deal with applications dealing with facts which take place subsequent to the entry into force of the Convention for a particular Contracting State.   Lithuania deposited its instrument of ratification of the Convention and made a declaration under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention on 20 June 1995.        To the extent, therefore, that the application relates to facts which occurred before that date, the application is incompatible ratione temporis with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.    The applicant also complains of the proceedings subsequent to 20 June 1995.        The Commission first notes that the only judicial decision taken after 20 June 1995 is the decision of the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court to dismiss the cassation appeal of the President of that Court.        The applicant makes no specific complaints about the proceedings before the Supreme Court beyond a general complaint that the Civil Chamber did not re-determine the case.   However, even assuming Article 6 (Art. 6) to be applicable, once the cassation proceedings had been re-instituted, it could not be expected that the court considering the case would do more than give a new cassation decision.   The Civil Chamber, in its decision of 5 December 1995, gave a new cassation decision in that it reviewed the previous decisions, and agreed with the decisions which found against the applicant.        Given that the Commission is not able to examine events prior to 20 June 1995, the Commission is unable to find any unfairness in the proceedings before the Supreme Court.        It follows that this part of 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.        M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               G.H. THUNE       Secretary                                   President to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber