Search
document

Document text Analytics

R.T. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 25145/94 • ECHR ID: 001-2494

Document date: November 29, 1995

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 2

R.T. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 25145/94 • ECHR ID: 001-2494

Document date: November 29, 1995

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 25145/94

by R.T.

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 29 November 1995, the following members being present:

Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, 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 10 January 1994

by R.T. against the United Kingdom and registered on 14 September 1994

under file No. 25145/94;

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 facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the

applicant's representative, may be summarised as follows. The

applicant is a Turkish citizen born in approximately 1976. She was in

the United Kingdom as a refugee between January and March 1992, when

she left. She is now in the safe haven established by the United

Nations in Northern Iraq. She is represented before the Commission by

Mr. N. McQueen, an academic lawyer who lives in London.

On 21 October 1993 the applicant's representative found a letter

of 5 August 1993 addressed to the applicant at the house in which he

now lives. The letter was from local council and required payment of

some £400 by way of community charge. A liability order was

subsequently made. After some initial correspondence with the council,

the council informed the applicant's representative that the house was

registered with the Land Registry as being owned by the applicant and

another person, and that the council intended to "pursue the matter

against [the applicant] until such time as evidence is produced to show

that she no longer has a legal interest in the property ... I do have

a duty to collect the council tax payable and at present there is no

evidence in my possession to suggest this is not the liability of [the

applicant]." The council officer noted that the applicant's

representative had access to the property and asked about his own

interest in the property.

On 21 January 1994, the council again wrote to the applicant's

representative, stating that "the council's bailiffs have returned the

liability order again [the applicant] and my next action can be to

apply to the court for her committal to prison. However, I will

refrain from taking this drastic action until 7 February to give ...

the opportunity to provide the information I requested in my previous

letter."

The applicant's representative states that an attempt to arrest

the applicant was made in August 1994, and that a further summons for

council tax for the years 1993 - 1995 has been issued.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 of the Convention

because the local council is trying the applicant in her absence and

attempting to imprison her.

THE LAW

The applicant alleges a violation of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention, which provides, so far as relevant, as follows:

"1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or

of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a

fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an

independent and impartial tribunal established by law."

Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention applies to proceedings by

which civil rights and obligations or criminal charges are determined,

the concepts of "civil rights and obligations" and "criminal charge"

being autonomous. The Commission is aware that a person against whom

a liability order for non-payment of the community charge has been made

can be imprisoned if certain conditions have been met (that is, the

conditions set out in the Community Charges (Administration and

Enforcement) Regulations 1989 - see No. 19380/92, Benham v. the United

Kingdom, Comm. Rep. 29.11.94, pending before the European Court of

Human Rights). A liability order sets out the amount of local tax

which is to be paid, and a committal order may only be made if (inter

alia) the debtor has been present in court to be examined.

The Commission further recalls that proceedings to establish

liability to tax determine neither civil rights and obligations nor,

in the absence of a penal aspect, criminal charges (in the civil

context, see No. 11189/84, Dec. 11.12.86, D.R. 50 p. 121, with the

further references at p. 140, and in the criminal context, Eur. Court

H.R., Bendenoun judgment of 24 February 1994, Series A no. 284, pp. 19,

20, paras. 46-48).

In the present case liability orders appear to have been made

against the applicant, but for the time being no committal proceedings

have taken place. Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention does not apply

to the liability proceedings which have been brought.

It follows that the application is incompatible ratione materiae

with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27

para. 2 (Art. 27-2).

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

(M.F. BUQUICCHIO) (C.L. ROZAKIS)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant