CASE OF H.B. v. SWITZERLAND

1. The case is numbered 22/1996/641/825. The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

2. Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply to all cases concerning the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9). _______________

Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 29 March and 23 April 1996, and composed of the following judges:

Mr F. Matscher, Chairman, Mr L.-E. Pettiti, Mr L. Wildhaber,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,

Having regard to the application against Switzerland dated 16 February 1996 lodged with the Court by a German national, Mr H.B., on 26 February 1996;

Whereas Switzerland has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention) (art. 46) and ratified Protocol No. 9 (P9) to the Convention, Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention so as to enable a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") to refer the case to the Court;

Noting that the present case has not been referred to the Court by the Government of the respondent State or by the Government of the Contracting State of which the applicant is a national or by the Commission under Article 48 para. 1 (a), (b) or (d) (art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-b, art. 48-1-d) of the Convention;

Having regard to the Commission's report of 18 October 1995 on the application (no. 17951/91) lodged with the Commission by Mr H.B. on 16 January 1991;

Noting that the report was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 24 November 1995, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 (art. 31-2) of the Convention;

Whereas the applicant complained that proceedings in the tax courts of Obwalden (Canton of Unterwalden) were not public and alleged a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention, under which "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... public hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...";

Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, (i) requested the Commission to refer the case to the Court and (ii) requested the Court to suspend the proceedings immediately until such time as the Commission had ruled on the application (no. 28332/95) which he had submitted to it in 1995 and to join the two cases if it decided to entertain the other case also;

Having regard to Articles 32 para. 1, 47 and 48 (art. 32-1, art. 47, art. 48) of the Convention and Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,

1. Observes that, pursuant to Article 32 para. 1 (art. 32-1) of the Convention, for the Court to have jurisdiction to deal with an application the case must be referred to it within a period of three months from the date of transmission of the Commission's report to the Committee of Ministers, failing which it falls to the Committee of Ministers to decide whether there has been a violation of the Convention;

2. considers that in this case that provision was complied with, since the Commission's report was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers on 24 November 1995 and the application reached the secretariat of the Commission on 19 February 1996, that is five days before expiry of the three-month period, and was then communicated to the registry of the Court by the Commission on 26 February;

3. Finds that

(a) Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention does not empower the Court to rule on the request that it stay its decision on the present case until such time as the Commission has ruled on application no. 28332/95, at present pending before it, or the request that the cases be joined;

(b) the case raises no serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention, as the Court has already established case-law on the requirement of a public hearing in Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention; and

(c) the case does not, for any other reason, warrant consideration by the Court as, in the event of a finding that there has been a breach of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers can award the applicant just satisfaction, having regard to any proposals made by the Commission;

4. Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be considered by the Court.

Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 17 May 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: Franz MATSCHER Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD Registrar