CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 avril 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 17 April 2000 J.B. v. Switzerland (dec.) - 31827/96 Decision 6.4.2000 [Section II] Article 6 Criminal proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Self-incrimination - obligation to submit documents in tax proceedings: admissible Between 1979 and 1985, the applicant invested money in several companies. The amounts invested were not, however, declared for the taxation period 1981-88. Tax evasion proceedings were subsequently initiated by the tax authorities against the applicant in respect of the federal taxes. He was asked to furnish all the documents in his possession relating to the companies. The applicant admitted having made the investments but did not hand over any documents. Further requests for information were addressed to him by the tax authorities, with no result. As a consequence, they imposed a disciplinary fine, which the applicant duly paid. The tax authorities later imposed two consecutive disciplinary fines, respectively for federal and cantonal taxes, on the ground that the applicant still would not provide the requested information. The applicant’s appeal against the disciplinary fine relating to the federal taxes was dismissed by the Tax Appeals Commission. He unsuccessfully appealed to the Federal Court, arguing that communicating the required documents would amount to self-incrimination. Following the Federal Court’s decision, the applicant and the tax authorities reached an agreement which settled the proceedings against the applicant and cancelled the third fine and a fourth one which had been imposed on him at a later stage. According to the agreement, the proceedings before the Convention organs remained unaffected. Admissible under Article 6 § 1 (self-incrimination). Inadmissible under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7: The first fine was imposed on the applicant on the ground that he had not reacted to the authorities’ requests to submit relevant documents. The second and increased fine was imposed on him at a later stage on account of his repeated refusals to submit the documents despite the first fine and renewed requests from the authorities. The punishable conduct thus differed both in time and substance, and it could not be deemed that the two impugned decisions were based on the same conduct: manifestly ill-founded.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes