A.P., M.P. AND T.P. v. SWITZERLAND

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 19958/92

by A. P., M. P. and T. P.

against Switzerland

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

16 October 1995, the following members being present:

MM. H. DANELIUS, Acting President

S. TRECHSEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Mr. F. MARTINEZ

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

G.B. REFFI

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

N. BRATZA

I. BÉKÉS

J. MUCHA

E. KONSTANTINOV

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

P. LORENZEN

K. HERNDL

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 13 March 1992 by

A. P., M. P. and T. P. against Switzerland and registered on

11 May 1992 under file No. 19958/92;

Having regard to :

- the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

the Commission;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

7 November 1994, the observations in reply submitted by the

applicants on 6 January 1995, and the further observations

submitted by the applicants on 29 June 1995;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

Facts

THE FACTS

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be

summarised as follows.

The applicants, Swiss citizens residing at Hombrechtikon in

Switzerland, are the heirs of Mr. P., who died on 28 February 1984.

The first applicant, a housewife born in 1924, is P.'s widow. The

second applicant, a construction engineer born in 1951, and the third

applicant, a construction entrepreneur born in 1955, are sons of P.

Before the Commission they are represented by Mr. H.-P. Derksen, a

lawyer practising in Zürich.

Particular circumstances of the case

After the applicant's death on 28 February 1984, a tax inventory

was drawn up on 8 May 1984. Towards the end of May 1984 the period

expired during which the applicants' heirs could have refused the

heritage (see below, Relevant domestic law).

Following a control of the accounts of a company formerly owned

by P. the suspicion arose that between 1977 and 1982 he had drawn

company income without declaring it. On 13 December 1985 the Cantonal

Tax Office (Kantonales Steueramt) of the Canton of Zürich instituted

proceedings against P.'s heirs for the payment of federal taxes.

In the ensuing proceedings the applicants were represented by a

lawyer.

On 3 February 1989 the Finance Directorate of the Canton of

Zurich imposed taxes and criminal taxes (Nach- und Strafsteuern) on the

applicants for the cantonal taxes in respect of the period 1979 until

1983. However, on 2 November 1989 the Zurich Administrative Court

quashed the decision on the ground that the responsibility of heirs in

matters of criminal taxes contradicted fundamental principles of

criminal law in a State governed by law (rechtsstaatliches Strafrecht).

On 16 January 1990 the Tax Office found that P. had committed tax

evasion in respect of the tax periods 1981/1982 and 1983/84. The

decision stated inter alia:

"By incorrectly declaring his income the person liable for tax

has withheld taxes from the State and thus become guilty of tax

evasion. According to Sections 130 para. 1 and 129 para. 1,

respectively, of the Ordinance on Direct Federal Taxes his heirs

must therefore pay a fine of up to the fourfold amount in

addition to the tax withdrawn. For the taxation period 1981/82,

when more than 5/10 were evaded, the fine amounts to 1,5 times

the amount, and for the taxation period 1983/84, when more than

3/10 were evaded, to 1,3 times the amount of the taxes withheld.

However it can be observed that the heirs have done everything

possible to clarify the incorrect declaration of taxes for which

reason the fine is reduced to 1/4."

"Durch die unvollständige Deklaration seines Einkommens hat der

Pflichtige dem Staat eine Steuer vorenthalten und sich dadurch

der Steuerhinterziehung schuldig gemacht. Seine Erben haben

daher gemäss Art. 130 Abs. 1 resp. Art. 129 Abs. 1 des Beschlus-

ses über die direkte Bundessteuer ausser der hinterzogenen Steuer

eine Busse bis zum vierfachen Betrag zu entrichten. Diese wird

im vorliegenden Falle bei der Veranlagungsperiode 1981/82 da mehr

als 5/10 hinterzogen wurde, auf den 1,5-fachen Betrag und bei der

Veranlagungsperiode 1983/84 da mehr als 3/10 hinterzogen wurde,

auf den 1,3-fachen Betrag der hinterzogenen Steuer festgesetzt.

Indem aber festgestellt werden kann, dass die Erben alles ihnen

Zumutbare zur Bereinigung der unrichtigen Deklaration getan

haben, wird die Busse auf 1/4 herabgesetzt."

The decision concluded that the heirs had to pay taxes of 19,206

SFr and a fine of 6,758.75 SFr.

On 19 September 1990 the Federal Taxes Appeals Board (Bundes-

steuer-Rekurskommission) of the Canton of Zurich partly upheld the

applicants' appeal and quashed the contested decision in respect of the

period 1981/82; in respect of the period 1983/84 the Board reduced the

taxes due to 8,870.40 and the fine to 2,882.90 SFr.

The applicants lodged an administrative appeal (Verwaltungsge-

richtsbeschwerde) with the Federal Court (Bundesgericht) complaining

of a breach of the presumption of innocence in that they were fined

without any personal guilt. The appeal also stated:

"Thus, the applicants are entitled in the determination of the

criminal charge against them to a fair and public hearing by an

independent and impartial tribunal established by law. They are

furthermore entitled to the special rights of defence under

Article 6 para. 3 of the Convention. The applicants, who were

charged with a criminal offence, should have been granted these

defence rights ex officio, but this has not happened so far."

"So haben die Beschwerdeführer Anspruch darauf, dass ihre Sache

in billiger Weise öffentlich von einem unabhängigen und

unparteiischen, auf Gesetz beruhenden Gericht, das über die

Stichhaltigkeit der gegen sie erhobenen strafrechtlichen Anklage

zu entscheiden hat, gehört wird. Ferner stehen ihnen die

besonderen Verteidigungsrechte gemäss Art. 6 Ziff. 3 EMRK zu.

Diese Verfahrensrechte sind den Beschwerdeführern als einer

strafbaren Handlung Angeklagten von Amtes wegen einzuräumen, was

bisher nicht geschehen ist."

On 5 July 1991 the Federal Court dismissed the appeal, the

decision being served on 16 October 1991. In respect of the alleged

violation of the presumption of innocence the Court found:

"However, according to the principle of the succession in taxes

of the heirs ... the latter shall, under Section 130 para. 1 of

the Ordinance on Direct Federal Taxes, be liable up to the amount

of their share in the estate, and irrespective of any personal

guilt, for the deceased person's evaded taxes and the fines. The

statutory provision in question of the Ordinance on Direct

Federal Taxes thus expressly envisages that the heirs without

being held personally guilty enter into the position of the

deceased also in respect of the criminal tax. The applicants

therefore cannot deduce anything in respect of the heirs'

liability from the presumption of innocence stipulated in

Article 6 of the Convention, which only applies to persons

charged with a criminal offence ... Nor can the general

principles of penal law invoked by the applicants be of avail to

them in these circumstances."

"Nach dem Grundsatz der Steuernachfolge der Erben ... haften

diese gemäss Art. 130 Abs. 1 BdBST jedoch ohne Rücksicht auf ein

eigenes Verschulden bis zur Höhe ihrer Erbteile für die vom

Erblasser hinterzogene Steuer und für die Bussen. Die fragliche

Gesetzesbestimmung des BdBST sieht somit ausdrücklich vor, dass

die Erben auch bezüglich der Strafsteuer in die Stellung des

Erblassers eintreten, ohne dass sie ein persönliches Verschulden

trifft. Aus der Unschuldsvermutung des Art. 6 EMRK, die nur für

den wegen einer strafbaren Handlung Angeklagten gilt ... , können

die Beschwerdeführer daher nichts zur Frage der Erbenhaftung

ableiten. Die angerufenen allgemeinen Grundsätze des Strafrechts

sind den Beschwerdeführern unter diesen Umständen ebenfalls

unbehelflich."

Relevant domestic law

According to Section 48 para. 3 of the Swiss Penal Code

(Strafgesetzbuch), a fine is extinguished if the convicted person dies

(stirbt der Verurteilte, so fällt die Busse weg).

II.

Section 130 para. 1 of the Ordinance on Direct Federal Taxes

(Beschluss über die direkte Bundessteuer <BdBST>) provides inter alia:

"If the evasion is discovered only after the death of the person

liable to pay taxes, proceedings are instituted and carried out

against his heirs. Irrespective of personal guilt, these will

be jointly liable for the deceased person's evaded taxes and the

fine incurred by him up to an amount not exceeding their share

in the estate."

"Wird die Hinterziehung erst nach dem Tode des Steuerpflichtigen

entdeckt, so wird das Verfahren gegenüber seinen Erben angehoben

und durchgeführt, und diese haften bis zur Höhe ihrer Erbteile

solidarisch für die vom Erblasser hinterzogene Steuer und die von

ihm verwirkten Bussen ohne Rücksicht auf ein eigenes

Verschulden."

III.

Section 560 para. 4 of the Swiss Civil Code (Zivilgesetzbuch)

provides that, upon inheriting the estate, "the debts of the deceased

shall become the personal debts of the heirs" ("die Schulden des

Erblassers werden zu persönlichen Schulden der Erben"). According to

Section 566 para. 1 of the Swiss Civil Code, "the legal and instituted

heirs have the possibility to refuse the inheritance which has fallen

to them" ("die gesetzlichen und eingesetzten Erben haben die Befugnis,

die Erbschaft, die ihnen zugefallen ist, auszuschlagen").

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complain under Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention

that they have been convicted of an offence irrespective of any

personal guilt. The tax authorities established neither their own

guilt nor that of P.

Under Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 of the Convention they complain

that they could not defend themselves in a public hearing before an

independent and impartial court, and that P. did not have this

opportunity either. Moreover, Section 130bis of the Ordinance on

Direct Federal Taxes deprived them under penalty of certain defence

rights.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 13 March 1992 and registered

on 11 May 1992.

On 5 September 1994 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government, pursuant to Rule 48

para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure.

The Government's written observations were submitted on

7 November 1994. The applicants replied on 6 January 1995. They

submitted further observations on 29 June 1995.

Considerations

THE LAW

The applicants complain under Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the

Convention that they have been convicted of an offence irrespective of

any personal guilt. The tax authorities established neither their own

guilt nor that of P.

According to Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention,

"everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent

until proved guilty according to law".

The Government contest that the applicants were charged with a

criminal offence. It is submitted that the proceedings at issue

established the guilt of the deceased, not of the applicants.

Furthermore, according to Section 566 of the Swiss Civil Code, the

applicants were not obliged to accept the inheritance. Indeed, the

applicants only become liable to the extent that they have inherited,

and not in respect of the entire estate. Finally, the names of the

heirs assuming the deceased's fine will not be listed in the criminal

The Government point out that under Swiss law the estate has no

legal personality and that the heirs, as it were, represent the

deceased in proceedings where only the latter, not the heirs, is the

accused. By envisaging the responsibility of the heirs, the law aims

at discouraging a person from withdrawing taxes during his lifetime.

In the present case, the guilt of the deceased was established.

The applicants dispute that tax evasion proceedings lose their

criminal character within the meaning of Article 6 (Art. 6) of the

Convention when they are instituted against the heirs. Indeed,

according to the meanwhile revised law the heirs are exempted from the

fine if no blame falls on them. Moreover, not even the guilt of the

deceased was established according to the requirements of Article 6

para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention.

In the applicants' view, it is irrelevant that as heirs they

could have refused the inheritance; thus, the offence which the

deceased committed may only become known after the expiry of the time-

limit for refusing the inheritance. Finally, as regards entry into the

criminal register, the applicants point out that the tax authorities

do not require a special register; thus, the records to be taken into

account when assessing a tax offence are always available in the

taxpayer's personal file.

The applicants further point out that the heirs are not only

liable for taxes but also for a punishment imposed on the deceased.

On the other hand, the State's right to punish an offence loses its

inherent justification after the person's death. It is questioned how

a decision can be given as regards the reasons for the offences, or the

manner in which they were committed, or on the issue of guilt, if the

offender is no longer present. Section 130 of the Ordinance on Direct

Federal Taxes is clearly an exception to Section 48 para. 3 of the

Penal Code.

The applicants dispute that the deceased's guilt and culpability

were legally established. It would have been precisely the task of

proceedings duly conducted in accordance with Article 6 paras. 1

and 2 (Art. 6-1, 6-2) of the Convention to prove this. Indeed, in

these proceedings the heirs either cooperate with the authorities by

helping to "convict" the offender, or risk themselves, as a consequence

of refusing to cooperate, incurring a more severe penalty. Article 6

para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention prohibits the conduct of any

criminal proceedings against third parties, including heirs, in place

of the accused, because this would make it impossible to observe the

principle of the presumption of innocence.

Having examined these complaints the Commission finds that they

raise serious questions of fact and law which are of such complexity

that their determination should depend on an examination of the merits.

The application cannot, therefore, be regarded as being manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention, and no other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been

established.

Order

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the

merits of the case.

Secretary to the Commission Acting President

of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (H. DANELIUS)