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)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy