Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)80[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
King against the United Kingdom
(Application No. 13881/02, judgment of 16 November 2004, final on 16 February 2005)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the excessive length of criminal proceedings before the tax authorities (violation of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the Government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;
Having examined the information provided by the Government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:
- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures, preventing similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix) and considering the decision taken at the 960th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (28 March 2006), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination of this case.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)80
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
King against the United Kingdom
Introductory case summary
The case concerns the excessive length of certain criminal proceedings before the tax authorities (violation of Article 6§1).
The proceedings lasted for 13 years, 10 months and 12 days from the date on which the applicant was warned of the possibility that he could be prosecuted, until the conclusion of the appeal proceedings in 2001.
The European Court drew attention in particular to three periods of delay attributable to the authorities:
- a delay of eight months by the Special Commissioners in producing the case stated for appeal;
- a gap of nine months between the rejection of the applicant’s appeal and the issue of the penalty determinations on the relevant assessments;
- an unexplained delay of nearly two years between the decision to transfer the appeals and their actual transfer to the Special Commissioners.
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
--
--
17 500 EUR
17 500 EUR
Paid within the time-limit
b) Individual measures
The proceedings were concluded in 2001. Consequently, no other individual measure is considered necessary.
II.General measures
Procedures regarding decisions of the Special Commissioners have changed since the material time. There is now a two-month target set for the production and release of a written decision after a hearing before the Special Commissioners. That target has been met invariably.
Instructions (EM 1362) have been issued to officers of HMRC (Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs which now integrates the work of Inland Revenue and HM Customs and Excise) to advise a taxpayer of his rights under Article 6 of the Convention as soon as the possibility of a penalty arises. Tax officers have been instructed to make penalty determinations as soon as practicable (although no time-limit has been set) and to review files every six months to ensure that a matter is progressing at an appropriate rate.
The judgment was published in the European Human Rights Reports under reference (2005) 41 EHRR 2 and in Simon’s Tax Cases under reference (2005) STC 438. A copy of the judgment was circulated by HMRC to all relevant parties, in particular, to the Inland Revenue teams specifically concerned with technical and policy matters with respect to penalties and to the Department of Constitutional Affairs (now, the Ministry of Justice), which has responsibility for all the Tax Tribunals. In April 2005 the DCA distributed a circular (Circular 2/2005) to all General Commissioners of Income Tax (approximately 2500 of them) drawing their attention to the judgment, to the violation found, and in particular, to the delays caused by Inland Revenue, Special Commissioners and General Commissioners.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that the United Kingdom have thus complied with their obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 3 June 2010 at the 1086th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy