A.P., M.P. and T.P. v. Switzerland

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No.

August 1997

A.P., M.P. and T.P. v. Switzerland - 19958/92

Judgment 29.8.1997

Article 6

Article 6-2

Presumption of innocence

Imposition of criminal sanction on heirs for tax evasion committed by deceased: violation

[This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.]

I.ARTICLE 6 § 2 OF THE CONVENTION

A.Applicability of Article 6

Reiteration of Court’s case-law on concept of “criminal charge”.

Nature and severity of the penalty risked: fines were not inconsiderable and might have been four times as large.

Nature of the offence: tax legislation lays down certain requirements, to which it attaches penalties in the event of non-compliance – penalties not intended as pecuniary compensation for damage but essentially punitive and deterrent in nature.

Classification of the proceedings under national law: Court attaches weight to the finding of the Federal Court, in its judgment in the present case, that the fine in question is “penal” in character and depends on the “guilt” of the offending taxpayer.

Conclusion: Article 6 applicable (seven votes to two).

B.Compliance with Article 6 § 2

No issue could be, nor was, taken with the recovery from the applicants of unpaid taxes – indeed, it is normal that tax debts, like other debts incurred by the deceased, should be paid out of the estate – imposing criminal sanctions on the living in respect of acts apparently committed by a deceased person is, however, a different matter.

Not necessary to decide whether the guilt of the deceased was lawfully established – proceedings were brought against the applicants themselves and the fine was imposed on them – applicants were subjected to a penal sanction for tax evasion allegedly committed by deceased.

Fundamental rule of criminal law that criminal liability does not survive the person who has committed the criminal act – such a rule is also required by the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 6 § 2.

Conclusion: violation (seven votes to two).

II.ARTICLE 6 §§ 1 AND 3 OF THE CONVENTION

In view of finding of violation of Article 6 § 2, not necessary to address issues raised under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3.

Conclusion: not necessary to consider allegations (unanimously).

III.ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION

Costs and expenses before the Convention institutions to be reimbursed.

Conclusion: respondent State to pay specified sum to applicants (unanimously).

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy