هيثم الفقى
07-16-2009, 12:59 PM
X. v. THE NETHERLANDS - 2248/64 [1967] ECHR 4 (06 February 1967)
THE FACTSWhereas the facts of the case as presented by the Applicant may besummarised as follows:The Applicant is a Netherlands citizen, born in 1910.Although residing at Eindhoven (Netherlands), he has worked since 1952in Belgium.His complaints may be summarised as follows:1. Contributions to the Dutch social security systemWhile referring to a Treaty of 29th August, 1947, between Belgium andthe Netherlands and to a certain Ordinance of the European EconomicCommunity (EEC), the Applicant states that, as long as he is employedin Belgium, he is insured exclusively under the Belgian social securitysystem and he receives children's allowances in Belgium. Consequently,he is obliged to pay contributions under the social security scheme inBelgium, but has no similar obligation in the Netherlands.Nevertheless, during periods of unemployment, he receives unemploymentrelief and children's allowances in the Netherlands and during suchperiods he falls under the Dutch social security system in general.In 1960, he was unemployed for 83 days and during that time he receivedin the Netherlands unemployment relief and children's allowances. As,during this period of unemployment, the Applicant still under the Dutchsocial security system, he had to pay contributions according to theDutch Old Age Pensions Act (Algemene Ouderdomswet) and the Widows andOrphans Act (Weduwen-en Wezenwet), and he now complains of the waythese contributions were calculated.In this respect, he states that, instead of deciding the amount of suchcontributions exclusively on the basis of his income in the Netherlandsduring the period of unemployment, the Tax Inspector at Eindhoven tookinto account his income during the whole year 1960. The result was thathe was in fact obliged to pay contributions in the Netherlands inrespect of a part of the salary and the children's allowances which hehad received in Belgium.In the Applicant's opinion, this way of calculating these contributionswas contrary to the Treaty of 1947 and to a certain EEC Ordinance, asin fact he had to pay contributions twice (in Belgium and in theNetherlands) in respect of the same income.As the Applicant found this unreasonable, he lodged an appeal with theCourt of Appeal (Gerechtshof) at 's-Hertogenbosch. By decision of ...1963, the Court rejected his appeal on the ground that hiscontributions had been calculated according to the rules laid down inan Order issued on 22nd December, 1959 by the Secretaries of State forSocial Affairs and Public Health and for Finances and that, moreover,this way of calculating was not contrary to the Treaty and theOrdinance referred to by the Applicant.The Applicant lodged a further appeal (beroep in cassatie) which wasrejected on ... 1964 by the Judges' Chamber (Raadkamer) of the SupremeCourt (Hoge Raad).The Applicant concludes that, as a result of the decisions taken by theNetherlands courts, he has been obliged to pay contributions twice (inBelgium and in the Netherlands) in respect of the same income; thatthis implies an unjust "punishment" imposed on him for working outsidethe Netherlands; that another unreasonable result is that the amountof contributions which a person has to pay in the Netherlands isincreased according to the number of his children (the Applicant hererefers to the fact that the children's allowances received in Belgiumwere included in the amount on the basis of which the Dutch authoritiescalculated his contributions in the Netherlands); and that, in hiscase, the result was particularly unreasonable, since a part of thechildren's allowances which he had received in 1960 related to the year1959 and should therefore, in no circumstances, have been included inhis income for 1960.He alleges a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.2. Taxation in the Netherlands in respect of Belgian children'sallowancesIn the Applicant's opinion, it follows from the Treaty of 1947 and theEEC Ordinance concerned that as a Dutch citizen working in Belgium heis entitled to the same treatment as a Belgian worker in respect ofsocial security benefits.However, whereas the children's allowances received by a Belgian workerare not subject at all to taxation, the Belgian children's allowanceswhich he receives are subject to taxation by the Netherlandsauthorities.Although he considers this practice incorrect, it does not appear thathe has lodged any appeal on this point. As regards his taxation for theyear 1960, he expressly states that he lodged no appeal, since he wasill at the relevant time.3. Proceedings before the Supreme CourtAs stated above, the Judges' Chamber of the Supreme Court rejected, on... 1964, the Applicant's appeal from the decision of the Court ofAppeal regarding his contributions to the Dutch social securityschemes.The Applicant alleges that he did not receive a "fair hearing" beforethe Supreme Court as he had not been invited to appear. There had beenno public hearing and judgment had not been pronounced publicly. Healso considers that, in view of the issues involved in the case, theSupreme Court was obliged, according to Article 177 of the EEC Treaty,to submit the case to the Court of Justice of the European Communitiesbefore deciding on the Applicant's appeal. He alleges violations ofArticle 6, paragraphs (1), (2), (3) (c), of the Convention.THE LAWWhereas the Applicant complains of the manner in which social securitycontributions and taxes are calculated in the Netherlands and, inparticular, of the obligations which have been imposed upon him in thisregard by the Netherlands authorities;Whereas, in respect of the social security contributions, he allegeshimself to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of theConvention which provides that "no one shall be subjected to tortureor to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment";Whereas the Commission finds no appearance of a violation of Article3 (Art. 3) of the Convention in the present case;Whereas the Applicant's complaint also gives rise to the questionwhether there has been a violation of Article 1 of the Protocol (P1-1)which in its first paragraph guarantees to everyone "the peacefulenjoyment of his possessions" and further provides that "no one shallbe deprived of his possessions except in the public interest andsubject to the conditions provided for by law and by the generalprinciples of international law"; whereas the Commission has notconsidered it necessary to examine the present complaint in relationto the first paragraph of Article 1 (Art. 1) since it is clear that thesecond paragraph of that Article (Art. 1-2) expressly reserves theright of a State "to enforce such laws as it deems necessary ... tosecure the payment of taxes or other contributions"; whereas, havingregard to this provision, it is also clear that Article 1 of theProtocol (P1-1) has not been violated in the present case;Whereas it follows that this part of the Application is manifestlyill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)(Art. 27-2), of the Convention;Whereas, in regard to the alleged violations of Article 6 (Art. 6) ofthe Convention, the Commission first observes that paragraphs (2) and(3) of this Article (Art. 6-2, 6-3) are clearly not applicable to thecircumstances of the present case since these paragraphs only concernpersons "charged with a criminal offense";Whereas, however, Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), gives everyonecertain procedural guarantees "in the determination of his civil rightsand obligations or of any criminal charge against him"; whereas,consequently, the question arises whether the proceedings in thepresent case concerned the determination of the Applicant's civilrights or obligations;Whereas the proceedings before the Supreme Court complained of by theApplicant concerned the determination of his contributions to socialsecurity schemes; whereas, in previous cases (Applications Nos.2145/64, Collection of Decisions, Volume 18, page 1, and 1904/63,2029/63, 2094/63 and 2217/64, Collection of Decisions, Volume 19, page106), the Commission has already found that Article 6, paragraph (1)(Art. 6-1) was not applicable to certain proceedings regardingtaxation;Whereas the Commission stated in these previous decisions that theproceedings complained of concerned a matter falling under public lawand not under private law, although the fiscal measures concerned mighthave had repercussions on the property rights of the Applicant;Whereas the same reasoning applies to the proceedings complained of inthe present case; whereas it follows that these proceedings did notconcern the determination of the Applicant's civil rights andobligations within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1),of the Convention and that the complaint as to these proceedings fallsoutside the competence of the Commission ratione materiae;Whereas, therefore, this part of the Application is incompatible withthe provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27,paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention.Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.
THE FACTSWhereas the facts of the case as presented by the Applicant may besummarised as follows:The Applicant is a Netherlands citizen, born in 1910.Although residing at Eindhoven (Netherlands), he has worked since 1952in Belgium.His complaints may be summarised as follows:1. Contributions to the Dutch social security systemWhile referring to a Treaty of 29th August, 1947, between Belgium andthe Netherlands and to a certain Ordinance of the European EconomicCommunity (EEC), the Applicant states that, as long as he is employedin Belgium, he is insured exclusively under the Belgian social securitysystem and he receives children's allowances in Belgium. Consequently,he is obliged to pay contributions under the social security scheme inBelgium, but has no similar obligation in the Netherlands.Nevertheless, during periods of unemployment, he receives unemploymentrelief and children's allowances in the Netherlands and during suchperiods he falls under the Dutch social security system in general.In 1960, he was unemployed for 83 days and during that time he receivedin the Netherlands unemployment relief and children's allowances. As,during this period of unemployment, the Applicant still under the Dutchsocial security system, he had to pay contributions according to theDutch Old Age Pensions Act (Algemene Ouderdomswet) and the Widows andOrphans Act (Weduwen-en Wezenwet), and he now complains of the waythese contributions were calculated.In this respect, he states that, instead of deciding the amount of suchcontributions exclusively on the basis of his income in the Netherlandsduring the period of unemployment, the Tax Inspector at Eindhoven tookinto account his income during the whole year 1960. The result was thathe was in fact obliged to pay contributions in the Netherlands inrespect of a part of the salary and the children's allowances which hehad received in Belgium.In the Applicant's opinion, this way of calculating these contributionswas contrary to the Treaty of 1947 and to a certain EEC Ordinance, asin fact he had to pay contributions twice (in Belgium and in theNetherlands) in respect of the same income.As the Applicant found this unreasonable, he lodged an appeal with theCourt of Appeal (Gerechtshof) at 's-Hertogenbosch. By decision of ...1963, the Court rejected his appeal on the ground that hiscontributions had been calculated according to the rules laid down inan Order issued on 22nd December, 1959 by the Secretaries of State forSocial Affairs and Public Health and for Finances and that, moreover,this way of calculating was not contrary to the Treaty and theOrdinance referred to by the Applicant.The Applicant lodged a further appeal (beroep in cassatie) which wasrejected on ... 1964 by the Judges' Chamber (Raadkamer) of the SupremeCourt (Hoge Raad).The Applicant concludes that, as a result of the decisions taken by theNetherlands courts, he has been obliged to pay contributions twice (inBelgium and in the Netherlands) in respect of the same income; thatthis implies an unjust "punishment" imposed on him for working outsidethe Netherlands; that another unreasonable result is that the amountof contributions which a person has to pay in the Netherlands isincreased according to the number of his children (the Applicant hererefers to the fact that the children's allowances received in Belgiumwere included in the amount on the basis of which the Dutch authoritiescalculated his contributions in the Netherlands); and that, in hiscase, the result was particularly unreasonable, since a part of thechildren's allowances which he had received in 1960 related to the year1959 and should therefore, in no circumstances, have been included inhis income for 1960.He alleges a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.2. Taxation in the Netherlands in respect of Belgian children'sallowancesIn the Applicant's opinion, it follows from the Treaty of 1947 and theEEC Ordinance concerned that as a Dutch citizen working in Belgium heis entitled to the same treatment as a Belgian worker in respect ofsocial security benefits.However, whereas the children's allowances received by a Belgian workerare not subject at all to taxation, the Belgian children's allowanceswhich he receives are subject to taxation by the Netherlandsauthorities.Although he considers this practice incorrect, it does not appear thathe has lodged any appeal on this point. As regards his taxation for theyear 1960, he expressly states that he lodged no appeal, since he wasill at the relevant time.3. Proceedings before the Supreme CourtAs stated above, the Judges' Chamber of the Supreme Court rejected, on... 1964, the Applicant's appeal from the decision of the Court ofAppeal regarding his contributions to the Dutch social securityschemes.The Applicant alleges that he did not receive a "fair hearing" beforethe Supreme Court as he had not been invited to appear. There had beenno public hearing and judgment had not been pronounced publicly. Healso considers that, in view of the issues involved in the case, theSupreme Court was obliged, according to Article 177 of the EEC Treaty,to submit the case to the Court of Justice of the European Communitiesbefore deciding on the Applicant's appeal. He alleges violations ofArticle 6, paragraphs (1), (2), (3) (c), of the Convention.THE LAWWhereas the Applicant complains of the manner in which social securitycontributions and taxes are calculated in the Netherlands and, inparticular, of the obligations which have been imposed upon him in thisregard by the Netherlands authorities;Whereas, in respect of the social security contributions, he allegeshimself to be a victim of a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3) of theConvention which provides that "no one shall be subjected to tortureor to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment";Whereas the Commission finds no appearance of a violation of Article3 (Art. 3) of the Convention in the present case;Whereas the Applicant's complaint also gives rise to the questionwhether there has been a violation of Article 1 of the Protocol (P1-1)which in its first paragraph guarantees to everyone "the peacefulenjoyment of his possessions" and further provides that "no one shallbe deprived of his possessions except in the public interest andsubject to the conditions provided for by law and by the generalprinciples of international law"; whereas the Commission has notconsidered it necessary to examine the present complaint in relationto the first paragraph of Article 1 (Art. 1) since it is clear that thesecond paragraph of that Article (Art. 1-2) expressly reserves theright of a State "to enforce such laws as it deems necessary ... tosecure the payment of taxes or other contributions"; whereas, havingregard to this provision, it is also clear that Article 1 of theProtocol (P1-1) has not been violated in the present case;Whereas it follows that this part of the Application is manifestlyill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)(Art. 27-2), of the Convention;Whereas, in regard to the alleged violations of Article 6 (Art. 6) ofthe Convention, the Commission first observes that paragraphs (2) and(3) of this Article (Art. 6-2, 6-3) are clearly not applicable to thecircumstances of the present case since these paragraphs only concernpersons "charged with a criminal offense";Whereas, however, Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1), gives everyonecertain procedural guarantees "in the determination of his civil rightsand obligations or of any criminal charge against him"; whereas,consequently, the question arises whether the proceedings in thepresent case concerned the determination of the Applicant's civilrights or obligations;Whereas the proceedings before the Supreme Court complained of by theApplicant concerned the determination of his contributions to socialsecurity schemes; whereas, in previous cases (Applications Nos.2145/64, Collection of Decisions, Volume 18, page 1, and 1904/63,2029/63, 2094/63 and 2217/64, Collection of Decisions, Volume 19, page106), the Commission has already found that Article 6, paragraph (1)(Art. 6-1) was not applicable to certain proceedings regardingtaxation;Whereas the Commission stated in these previous decisions that theproceedings complained of concerned a matter falling under public lawand not under private law, although the fiscal measures concerned mighthave had repercussions on the property rights of the Applicant;Whereas the same reasoning applies to the proceedings complained of inthe present case; whereas it follows that these proceedings did notconcern the determination of the Applicant's civil rights andobligations within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph (1) (Art. 6-1),of the Convention and that the complaint as to these proceedings fallsoutside the competence of the Commission ratione materiae;Whereas, therefore, this part of the Application is incompatible withthe provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27,paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention.Now therefore the Commission declares this Application INADMISSIBLE.