A.P., M.P. and T.P. v. SWITZERLANDDISSENTING OPINION OF MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON AND J.-C. GEUS

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: April 18, 1996

Doc ref: • ECHR ID:

Document date: April 18, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

DISSENTING OPINION OF MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON AND J.-C. GEUS

(regarding Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention)

We have voted against the finding of a violation of Article 6

para. 1 of the Convention for the following reasons.

We agree with the majority in finding Article 6 para. 1 to be

applicable in the present case.

In our opinion, however, the determination and calculation of the

taxes withheld by P. were mainly of a technical character and could

better be dealt with in written proceedings than in oral argument. Nor

would there seem to have been any issues of public interest which would

have required a public hearing (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Schuler-Zgraggen

v. Switzerland judgment of 24 June 1993, Series A no. 263, p. 20,

para. 58).

Moreover, an oral hearing would have further prolonged the

proceedings and might have made it difficult to comply with the

"reasonable time" requirement in Article 6 para. 1 (cf. Schuler-

Zgraggen judgment, loc. cit.). Indeed, when the applicants filed their

administrative law appeal on 21 December 1990 with the Federal Court,

five years had already elapsed after the proceedings had started

in 1985.

Finally, there is no reason to believe that the applicants, who

were represented by a lawyer, could not sufficiently present their

arguments in writing or adduce any evidence which they considered

relevant.

Consequently, we consider that Article 6 para. 1 has not been

violated in the present case.

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant