Lexploria

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY

Application No. 11592/85

by B.A. JUBY

against the United Kingdom

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

16 July 1987, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

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

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

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 21 March 1985

by B.A. JUBY against the United Kingdom and registered on 17 June 1985

under file No. 11592/85;

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 facts as they have been submitted on behalf of the

applicant, a British citizen born in 1936, who is a doctor by

profession, and who is represented before the Commission by Mr. K.

Walsh, an Irish Solicitor practising in Belgium, may be summarised

as follows:

The applicant has previously made two applications to the

Commission. The first, Application No. 9793/82, was declared

inadmissible by the Commission on 13 March 1984. It related to the

applicant's complaints concerning the discrimination which he alleged

arises because of the application of the income tax laws in the United

Kingdom when related to the Social Security Act 1975.

The second, Application No. 11254/84, was declared

inadmissible by the Commission on 10 December 1984. It alleged that

the Rapporteur did not fully consider the applicant's complaints in

the first application and that in particular the applicant's

complaints were misdescribed in the Commission's decision on its

admissibility.

In the present application the applicant complains that the

Commission has misunderstood the two previous applications and in

addition, in the second application, reached a decision prior to the

receipt of additional information from the applicant which the

applicant had informed the Commission would be sent.

In support of his present application, the applicant now

submits further legal arguments together with additional information

relating to his national insurance contributions made between 1975 and

April 1986.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains of discriminatory interference with

his rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. He invokes

Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1.

The applicant further complains that the Commission, in his

previous application No. 11254/84 which was declared inadmissible by

the Commission on 10 December 1984, took a decision on admissibility

prior to the receipt of additional information which was to be

provided by the applicant.

The applicant also complains that he has been denied, because

of the doctrine of Parliament Sovereignty, any effective remedy before

a national authority in respect of his complaints contrary to Article

13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains first of a discriminatory interference

with his rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1). He invokes

Article 14 (Art. 14+P1-1) of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1

of Protocol No. 1. The applicant further complains that in his previous

application No. 11254/84 the Commission failed to await relevant new

information which the applicant had told the Commission he was going to provide

prior to any decision being taken by the Commission on admissibility.

The Commission finds that the applicant's complaints concern

substantially the same matters as he complained of in his two earlier

applications, Nos. 9793/82, Dec. 13.3.84 and 11254/84, Dec 10.12.84

which the Commission has already examined and rejected. By virtue of Article

27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention, the Commission may not deal

with any petition which is "substantially the same as a matter which has

already been examined by the Commission" unless it contains "relevant new

information".

The applicant's submissions seek to restate those made in

relation to his previous applications and to elaborate the legal

reasoning previously submitted and to show that the previous

submissions were incorrectly evaluated by the Commission in its

decision on the admissibility of the applicant's first application.

It is clear, however, that such submissions do not constitute

"relevant new information" within the meaning of Article 27 para. 1

(b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.

In addition the applicant has submitted details of the actual

contributions for which he was liable. These figures illustrate the

precise way in which the matters about which he complained in his

first and second applications affected him. However, in view of the

submissions which the applicant made in support of those applications,

the mere provision of the figures to which the tax system about which

the applicant complains applied does not add anything to the substance

of the original complaint. This material is not, therefore, "relevant new

information" within the meaning of Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the

Convention.

The applicant has also submitted details of the contributions

which he has been required to make for the period subsequent to the

lodging of both his first and second applications. These

contributions have been treated in accordance with the same principles

and legal rules for tax purposes as those about which the applicant

complained in his first application. In these circumstances the

contributions for this further period merely constitute a further

example of the application of the same legal regime to the applicant

as that about which he complained in his previous applications.

Accordingly this material does not constitute relevant new information

within the meaning of Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.

It follows that the Commission is precluded by Article 27 para. 1 (b)

(Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention from dealing with this aspect of the

application.

2. The applicant also complains that he has been denied because

of the doctrine of Parliament Sovereignty any effective remedy before

a national authority in respect of his complaints contrary to Article

13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.

Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention provides:

"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this

Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before

a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has

been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

The Commission recalls its established case-law in relation to

the scope of application of Article 13 (Art. 13). It has held that:

"It cannot be deduced from Article 13 (Art. 13) that there must be a

remedy against legislation as such which is considered not to

be in conformity with the Convention. Such a remedy would in

effect amount to some sort of judicial review of legislation

because any other review - generally sufficient for Article 13

(Art. 13) which requires only a "remedy before a national authority" -

could hardly be effective concerning legislation. Without a

clear indication in the text Article 13 (Art. 13) cannot be extended

that far.... Article 13 (Art. 13) does not relate to legislation and

does not guarantee a remedy by which legislation could be

controlled as to its conformity with the Convention."

(Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, Comm.

Report 14.12.79, Series B no. 39, p. 49 para. 177).

It follows that this aspect of the applicant's complaint 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

JUBY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

JUBY v. THE UNITED KINGDOM