Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 13473/87

by P.

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

11 July 1988, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. SPERDUTI

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 1 October 1987 by P.

against the United Kingdom and registered on 22 October 1987 under file No.

13473/87;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the

Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen born in 1942 and resident

in Glasgow. He is represented by Fergus S. Ewing, a solicitor

practising in Scotland. The facts as submitted by the applicant may

be summarised as follows.

The applicant owns and occupies his home, a detached villa, in Glasgow,

Scotland. As occupier, the applicant is responsible for paying rates to the

local authority in respect of this property. The applicant also owns business

premises in B., for which he must also pay rates. Following the revaluation of

the rateable value of his properties in 1985 and an increase of the rates due,

the applicant entered a valuation appeal complaining, inter alia, that similar

properties in England were charged considerably less in rates. From the

precognition of the chartered surveyor who acted as expert witness in the

proceedings, it does not appear that there was any dispute as to the method of

assessment or as to whether it was in accordance with statutory provisions.

However, while in Scotland a revaluation had taken place in 1985, none had been

carried out in England and Wales since 1973 and the surveyor stated that this

was the major if not sole cause of the disparity complained of by the

applicant. The appeal was heard before the Strathclyde Region Local Valuation

Panel on 2 April 1987 and the applicant was informed by letter dated 7 April

1987 that the Panel found sufficient and adequate evidence as to similar

property in the Strathclyde region to justify the valuation and that in these

circumstances it was not entitled to look at property outside Scotland for

purposes of comparison. The applicant was precluded from appealing against

this decision by S.15 of the Local Government Financial Provisions (Scotland)

Act 1963 as amended by S.19 of the Rating and Valuation Amendment (Scotland)

Act 1984.

The valuation of rates in this case was carried out pursuant

to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 as amended by the Rating

and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Act 1984, which provide for the

implementation of a rating system in Scotland, which though in most

essentials similar to the rating system in England and Wales, does

differ in procedural matters. For example, revaluations take place

automatically in Scotland unless revoked by the Secretary of State,

whereas in England a revaluation has to be commissioned by the

Secretary of State. Also in Scotland, revaluations are carried out by

the Assessor, while in England, they are carried out by the Inland

Revenue.

COMPLAINTS

While the rates levied in respect of his properties are not

unrepresentative of similar property in the Strathclyde region, the

applicant complains that since the revaluation in 1985 the level of

rates payable is greater than for a comparable property situated in

England by 25 - 250 %. The applicant complains that this difference

of treatment of business and ordinary ratepayers in Scotland

constitutes discrimination against a national minority. The applicant

invokes Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention read in conjunction with Article

1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that as the owner of a home and of

business premises in Scotland, he is liable to heavier rates than

those payable in respect of similar properties in England. He invokes

Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.

Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention provides that:

"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in

this 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."

Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) provides that:

"Every natural or legal 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 and by the

general principles of international 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 control the use of property in

accordance with the general interest or to secure the

payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."

The Commission recalls that Article 14 (Art. 14) of the Convention

protects the enjoyment of rights and freedoms guaranteed under the

Convention from 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 applicant complains of a difference in the level

of rates payable between two regional jurisdictions within the United

Kingdom and alleges that this is discrimination against a national

minority.

The Commission notes in this regard that in many, if not all,

of the Contracting States, different legal jurisdictions exist in

different geographical areas within the State (e.g. cantons, communes,

Länder, etc). The Commission considers that Article 14 (Art. 14) does not

require a state to operate a uniform system of rate valuation

throughout its national territory. Thus the mere existence of

variations between such jurisdictions within a State does not

constitute discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 (Art. 14) of the

Convention. Moreover, there is no indication that the impact since

1985 on the applicant's properties of the differentiation between

England and Scotland as concerns the frequency of revaluation of the

rates in force was based on "association with a national minority" or

on any other ground mentioned in Article 14 (Art. 14). The Commission

accordingly finds no appearance of a violation of Article 14 of the

Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Art. 14+P1-1).

It follows that this application is manifestly ill-founded

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

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

P. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

LEXI