Search
document

Document text Analytics

A.N.M. & CO. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 25602/94 • ECHR ID: 001-2498

Document date: November 29, 1995

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 3

A.N.M. & CO. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Doc ref: 25602/94 • ECHR ID: 001-2498

Document date: November 29, 1995

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 25602/94

by A.N.M. & Co.

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 19 April 1994 by

A.N.M. & Co. against the United Kingdom and registered on 7 November

1994 under file No. 25602/94;

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 applicant is a machine tooling company in Helensburgh,

Dunbartonshire. It is represented before the Commission by Mr. A.N.

MacInnes, an engineer who is managing director of the company. The

facts of the application, as submitted by the applicant company's

representative, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant company received at least the following notices

relating to rates:

For the year 1989/90, in respect of which a summary warrant was issued

on 2 March 1990:

12.12.91 Notice of granting of summary warrant £52.00

07.02.94 Notice of passing of enforcement of

summary warrant to sheriff officers £52.00

12.04.94 " " £52.00

09.05.94 Enforcement notice with intimation

of poinding £52.00

22.08.94 " " £52.00

For the year 1991/92, the total rates for the company were £5538.62.

A summary warrant in respect of an outstanding balance of £73.64 was

issued on 19 February 1992:

12.04.92 Notice of passing of enforcement of

summary warrant to sheriff officers £73.64

01.07.92 " " £73.64

10.11.94 Enforcement notice with intimation

of poinding

In April 1994 the applicant company received a reply to a query

about summary warrants. In it, the Sheriff Clerk's Office wrote "I

note that you have difficulty in understanding why such warrants can

be granted without the persons named on them being given an opportunity

to defend themselves. There is, I am afraid, no requirement under

Scots law for service of summary warrants. Such warrants can be granted

by the Sheriff without service and based on the information put before

him by the applicant".

On 30 June 1994 the applicant company received a letter from the

sheriff officers confirming that although the company's full rates had

been paid, they were not paid within the timescale in the legislation.

The statutory addition was of 10% on top of the balance outstanding at

the time the sheriff signed the summary warrant.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant company claims that it is being hounded by the

local authority. It considers that it has suffered a catalogue of

errors at the hands of the council, which have been compounded by

poinding with no redress in law.

The applicant company complains that when information put before

the Sheriff by the local council is in error, neither the Sheriff nor

the council has any responsibility for its errors, and the recipient

has no defence.

The applicant company alleges a violation of Article 6 of the

Convention, and also refers to Article 8.

THE LAW

1. The applicant company alleges principally 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 ..."

The guarantees of Article 6 (Art. 6) only attach to proceedings

concerning "civil rights and obligations" or a "criminal charge". In

a case concerning the operation of the community charge, or poll tax,

in Scotland, the Commission has found that neither civil rights and

obligations nor a criminal charge are determined by the imposition

liability to community charge and subsequent enforcement by way of

summary warrant (No. 25373/94, Dec. 29.11.95).

In the present case, the applicant company became liable to rates

rather than to community charge, as community charge was a local tax

imposed on individuals. The methods of enforcement of rates are

however the same as for enforcement of community charge, as is shown

by a comparison of the methods in the present case with those in

Application No. 25373/94.

The Commission therefore finds that the proceedings by which the

applicant became liable to pay rates, and the subsequent attempts by

the sheriff officers to enforce that liability, did not determine

"civil rights and obligations" or any "criminal charge".

It follows that this part of the application is incompatible

ratione materiae with the provisions of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2).

2. The applicant company also alleges a violation of Article 8

(Art. 8) of the Convention.

The Commission has examined this complaint as it has been

submitted and, insofar as the matters complained of have been

substantiated and are within its competence, the Commission finds that

they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 8

(Art. 8) of the Convention.

It follows that 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.

Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber

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

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant