CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 4 mai 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB8BE277E { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:48pt; font-size:14pt } .sE5B8ADA1 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:48pt; font-size:14pt } .sAC001F88 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s888E4C48 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s194CE510 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s31B48246 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:41.7pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s9671CAED { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s8AD34D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sFAEFDAFC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBA699FBB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .sA3B71503 { width:197.8pt; display:inline-block } .s4E9ED0B3 { width:208.66pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 51224/99 by Peter FRÁTRIK against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4   June   2002 as a Chamber composed of   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää,   Mrs   E. Palm ,   Mr   J. Makarczyk ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   R. Maruste , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 March 1999 and registered on 22 September 1999, Having deliberated, decides as follows:     THE FACTS The applicant, Peter Frátrik, is a Slovakian national, who was born in 1951 and lives in Trnava, Slovakia. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 5 November 1992 the applicant was granted a trade licence entitling him, inter alia , to run a business in musical instruments. On 5 January 1993 the applicant registered himself with the health insurance fund and with the pension fund. In 1993 the applicant was taxed according to his annual income tax basis ( základ dane ) as a self-employed person of 9,550 Slovak korunas (SKK), in 1994 of SKK 7,595, in 1995 of SKK 11,050, in 1996 of SKK 18,225 and in 1997 of SKK 2,850. It appears that these sums were the applicant’s sole income during this period. On 1 January 1995, the Social Security Administration Act No. 274/1994 Coll. ( Zákon o sociálnej poisťovni ) entered into force. Under this Act, self ‑ employed persons, like the applicant, are required to contribute to the health insurance fund and the pension fund. The total contribution to both funds to be paid by self-employed persons on a monthly basis was fixed at 32.3% of 50% of the average monthly income tax basis gained during the previous fiscal year. The minimum contribution was fixed at 32.3% of the statutory defined minimum wage. The monthly minimum wage for the period between January 1995 and March 1996 was SKK 2,450 and for the period between April 1996 and June 1997 it was SKK 2,700. On 8 September 1997 the Trnava branch office of the Social Security Administration ( Sociálna poisťovňa ) ordered the applicant to pay a   contribution in the amount of SKK 24,978 to the health insurance fund and pension fund for the period between on 1 January 1995 and 30 June 1997. This amount was composed of SKK 9,504 payable for the fiscal year 1995 (i.e.   SKK 792 per month), SKK 10,236 for 1996 (i.e. SKK 793 per month until April 1996 and SKK 873 per month as from April 1996), and SKK 5,238 for 1997 (i.e. SKK 873 per month). The applicant filed an appeal with the Head Office of the Social Security Administration, arguing that, given his low income, he could not afford to pay these contributions. On 24 October 1997 the Head Office of the Social Security Administration upheld the decision of its Trnava branch. The applicant filed an administrative law appeal with the Trnava Regional Court ( Krajský súd ) against the decisions taken by the Social Security Administration. The applicant submitted that his income was below the statutory defined minimal living standard ( životné minimum ) and argued that, in these circumstances, he should be exempted from his payment obligations under the Social Security Administration Act. In his opinion, the application of this Act in his personal situation was unethical and unconstitutional. In its judgment of 24 September 1998, the Trnava Regional Court upheld the challenged decisions. This judgment became final on 30 October 1998 when it was served on the applicant. On the applicant’s request, his trade licence was cancelled on 31 May 1999. The applicant is unemployed since. On 3 June 1999 the applicant was informed by a judicial executor that enforcement proceedings had been brought against him in order to obtain payment of the contributions due as well as penalties for late payment. According to the applicant, he was thus forced to contract debts in order to pay the amounts due. B.     Relevant domestic law Social Security Administration Act Under Section 14 (1) (c) of the Social Security Administration Act, self ‑ employed persons, including holders of a trade licence, are liable to pay contributions to the health insurance fund and to the pension fund. Pursuant to Section 15 (1) of this Act, the level of these contributions are a percentage of the “base amount” ( vymeriavací základ ). At the material time, the relevant percentages applicable, by virtue of Section 15 (2), to self-employed persons were respectively 4.8% (health insurance fund) and 27.5% (pension fund), thus amounting in total to 32.3% of the “base amount”. The manner in which this “base amount” is to be defined for self ‑ employed persons is set out in Section 16 (4) in conjunction with Section   17   (2), i.e. 50% of the average monthly income tax basis gained in their capacity as a self-employed person in the course of the previous fiscal year. However, the base amount for self-employed person cannot be lower than the statutory defined minimum wage (Section 16 (8)). Until 31 March 1996, the statutory defined minimum wage in the Slovak Republic was SKK 2,450. On 1 April 1996, it was increased to SKK 2,700. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains that the obligation to pay the social security contributions under the Social Security Administration Act violated his rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that the level of these contributions, given his low income, constituted an excessive burden. 2.     The applicant further alleges a violation of Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that, in the determination of contributions to be paid under the Social Security Act, no distinction is made between on the one hand self-employed persons having gained an income tax basis equal or higher than twice the statutory defined minimum wage and, on the other, self-employed persons like the applicant with a lower income tax basis. The applicant points out that the sum of social contributions payable by him amounts to a higher percentage of his actual income than for self-employed persons whose income tax basis is at least twice the statutory minimum wage. 3.     Invoking Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant also complains that he was deprived of a fair hearing before the Regional Court in that it applied a discriminatory Act. 4.     The applicant further complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he did not have a remedy against the Regional Court’s judgment of 24   September 1998. 5.   The applicant finally alleges a violation of Article 1 of the Convention in that his rights under the Convention were not secured by the relevant legislative, administrative and judicial authorities. THE LAW 1.     The applicant complains that the contributions that he had to pay were contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that they amounted to an excessive financial burden. Invoking Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant further complains that he has been discriminated against in that the Social Security Administration Act does not make a special provision, as regards the determination of contributions due, for persons whose income tax basis is lower than twice the statutory defined minimum wage. Article 1 of Protocol No 1, in so far as relevant, provides: “Every natural ... person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law ... The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to ... secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” Article 14 of the Convention reads: “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.” The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule   54   §   3   (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government. 2.     The applicant further complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings at issue cannot be regarded as fair since they were based on discriminatory legislation. Article 6 of the Convention, in so far as relevant, provides: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...” The Court considers that the question whether or not the proceedings at issue were fair for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention must be distinguished from the question whether or not the provisions of the Social Security Administration Act are discriminatory. Insofar as the applicant complains of the outcome of the proceedings before the Trnava Regional, Court recalls that it is no court of appeal from domestic courts and cannot examine complaints alleging that the domestic courts reached a wrong decision. Noting that the applicant has been given ample opportunity to state his case and to submit whatever he found relevant for the outcome, the Court has found no indication that the proceedings at issue fell short of the requirements of Article 6 as to fairness of proceedings. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   3 and   4 of the Convention. 3.     Invoking Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant further complains that he did not have a remedy against the judgment of 24   September 1998. The Court considers that neither Article 13 of the Convention nor any other provision of the Convention guarantees a right of appeal against judicial decisions taken in social security disputes. It follows that this part of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention. 4. Insofar as the applicant relies on Article 1 of the Convention, according to which provision Contracting States shall secure within their territory the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention, the Court is of the opinion that this provision contains a purely general undertaking and that, even in conjunction with other Articles, it should not, in principle, be seen as a provision which can be the subject of a separate breach of the Convention (see Danini v. Italy, application no. 22998/93, Commission decision of 14 November 1996, Decisions and Reports (DR) 87, p. 24). The Court therefore does not find it necessary to conduct a separate examination of this part of the application. For these reasons, the Court by a majority Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 in conjunction with the alleged violation of Article 14 of the Convention; Declares inadmissible the remainder of the application.   Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas Bratza Section Registrar   President