(Grand Chamber) The court had to decide whether tax proceedings brought by the state against an individual involved the determination of a civil right within the meaning of article 6(1). It was argued by the Government that the existence of an individual’s tax obligation to pay tax belonged exclusively to the realm of public law and its determination did not involve a determination of a civil right. The court said: ‘Pecuniary interests are clearly at stake in tax proceedings, but merely showing that a dispute is ‘pecuniary’ in nature is not in itself sufficient to attract the applicability of Article 6(1) under its ‘civil’ head. In particular, according to the traditional case law of the Conventional institutions, there may exist ‘pecuniary’ obligations vis-a-vis the State or its subordinate authorities which, for the purpose of Article 6(1), are to be considered as belonging exclusively to the realm of public law and are accordingly not covered by the notion of ‘civil rights and obligations’. Apart from fines imposed by way of ‘criminal sanction’, this will be the case, in particular, where an obligation which is pecuniary in nature derives from tax legislation or is otherwise part of normal civic duties in a democratic society.
The Convention is, however, a living instrument to be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions, and it is incumbent on the Court to review whether, in the light of changed attitudes in society as to the legal protection that falls to be accorded to individuals in their relations with the State, the scope of Article 6(1) should not be extended to cover disputes between citizens and public authorities as to the lawfulness under domestic law of the tax authorities’ decisions.
Relations between the individual and the State have clearly developed in many spheres during the 50 years which have elapsed since the Convention was adopted, with State regulation increasingly intervening in private-law regulations. This has led the Court to find that procedures defined under national law as being part of ‘public law’ could come within the purview of Article 6 under its ‘civil’ head if the outcome was decisive for private rights and obligations, in regard to such matters as, to give some examples, the sale of land, the running of a private clinic, property interests, the granting of administrative authorisations relating to the conditions of professional practice or of a licence to serve alcoholic beverages. Moreover, the State’s increasing intervention in the individual’s day-to-day life, in terms of welfare protection, for example, has required the Court to evaluate features of public law and private law before concluding that the asserted right could be classified as ‘civil’.
However, rights and obligations existing for an individual are not necessarily civil in nature. Thus, political rights and obligations, such as the right to stand for election to the National Assembly, even though in those proceedings the applicant’s pecuniary interests were at stake, are not civil in nature, with the consequence that Article 6(1) does not apply. Neither does that provision apply to disputes between administrative authorities and those of their employees who occupy posts involving participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law. Similarly, the expulsion of aliens does not give rise to disputes over civil rights for the purposes of Article 6(1) of the Convention, which accordingly does not apply.
In the tax field, developments which might have occurred in democratic societies do not, however, affect the fundamental nature of the obligation on individuals or companies to pay tax. In comparison with the position when the Convention was adopted, those developments have not entailed a further intervention by the State into the ‘civil’ sphere of the individual’s life. The Court considers that tax matters still form part of the hard core of public-authority prerogatives, with the public nature of the relationship between the taxpayer and the tax authority remaining predominant . .’
Judges:
Wildhaber J P
Citations:
[2001] STC 1314, (2001) 34 EHRR 1068, 44759/98, [2001] ECHR 464, 3 ITL Rep 918
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 6
Jurisdiction:
Human Rights
Cited by:
Cited – Prosser v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue SCIT 12-Mar-2003
INHERITANCE TAX – interest on outstanding tax – whether not due on account of Human Rights points – interest due. . .
Cited – A, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Croydon SC 26-Nov-2009
The applicants sought asylum, and, saying that they were children under eighteen, sought also the assistance of the local authority. Social workers judged them to be over eighteen and assistance was declined.
Held: The claimants’ appeals . .
Cited – BB, Regina (on The Application of) v Special Immigration Appeals Commission and Another CA 19-Nov-2012
The Secretary of State wished to deport the applicant on the basis of his suspected involvement in acts of terrorism. An order for his deportation had been revoked by the respondent, but he had remained on very stringent bail conditions, since 2007. . .
Cited – QX v Secretary of State for The Home Department Admn 15-May-2020
Challenge to Temporary Exclusion Order.
Held: The concept of ‘civil rights and obligations’ cannot be interpreted solely by reference to national law but has an autonomous meaning within article 6(1) . .
Cited – Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc v Kymab Ltd SC 24-Jun-2020
SC Kymab alleged that the relevant patents are invalid for insufficiency because they did not enable the ordinary skilled person to work the claimed invention across the breadth of the claims. The patents were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Taxes Management
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.164805
