Lexploria

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)

Menu

A.K. v. AUSTRIA

A.K. v. AUSTRIA

LEXI