28332/95

 AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application No. 28332/95 by H. B. against Switzerland The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 14 January 1998, the following members being present: MM M.P. PELLONPÄÄ, President S. TRECHSEL N. BRATZA E. BUSUTTIL A. WEITZEL C.L. ROZAKIS Mrs J. LIDDY MM L. LOUCAIDES B. MARXER B. CONFORTI I. BÉKÉS G. RESS A. PERENIC C. BÎRSAN K. HERNDL M. VILA AMIGÓ Mrs M. HION Mr R. NICOLINI Mrs M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; Having regard to the application introduced on 29 June 1995 by H. B. against Switzerland and registered on 28 August 1995 under file No. 28332/95; Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission; Having deliberated; Decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, a German citizen born in 1940, is a business man residing in Grellingen in Switzerland. Before the Commission he is represented by Mr H.P. Derksen, a lawyer practising in Wallisellen in Switzerland. The applicant's previous Application No. 17951/91 was declared admissible on 5 April 1995 insofar as it concerned his complaint under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that he did not have a public hearing in criminal proceedings concerning federal taxes. In its Report of 18 October 1995 under Article 31 of the Convention, the Commission (Second Chamber) found no violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention. In its resolution of 4 September 1996 the Committee of Ministers agreed with the opinion expressed by the Commission in its Report. The present application concerns complaints under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfairness of criminal tax proceedings concerning cantonal taxes. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. Assessment of the applicant's taxes Upon establishing his residence in the Canton of Obwalden in 1980, the applicant reached an agreement with the Obwalden Cantonal Tax Administration (Steuerverwaltung) according to which he would pay cantonal taxes to the amount of 35,000 Swiss Francs (CHF) per year. In 1980, and again in 1981/82, his income was assessed as amounting to 180,000 CHF. In 1982 the Federal Tax Administration audited the accounts of the C. company. It transpired that, upon instruction of the Foreign Ministry of Poland, the C. company had commissioned Polish workers for building sites in Libya, and that in 1980, it had paid the applicant 735,845 CHF for commission services. On 13 July 1983, the applicant submitted a further tax declaration, backdated to 10 April 1981, in which he referred to certain payments of the C. company. Another tax declaration for the years 1983/84 was submitted on 15 September 1983. In the tax forms in use at the time in the Canton of Obwalden, certain questions had to be answered separately for the assessment of the cantonal and the federal taxes. Proceedings concerning federal taxes On 12 December 1985 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on account of evading federal taxes (Steuerhinterziehung). The applicant was then fined 413,587 CHF. His administrative law appeal (Verwaltungsgerichtsbeschwerde) was upheld in last resort by the Federal Court on 8 July 1988. Proceedings were resumed before the Cantonal Tax Appeals Commission which reduced the fine to 109,659 CHF. The applicant's administrative law appeal was dismissed by the Federal Court on 12 June 1990. Imposition of fine for evasion of cantonal taxes By letter of 16 May 1987 the Obwalden Cantonal Tax Administration (Steuerverwaltung) informed the applicant of the institution of criminal tax proceedings and of supplementary tax proceedings against him relating to the years 1980-1982. The letter mentioned the amounts received from the C. company which the applicant had not declared. Reference was also made to the relevant provisions of the Tax Statute (Steuergesetz) of the Canton of Obwalden. The applicant was informed that he could file any observations before 10 June 1987. In the subsequent proceedings, the applicant was represented by a lawyer. On 10 June 1987 the applicant requested the suspension (Sistierung) of the cantonal tax proceedings in view of the federal tax proceedings then pending. As a result, the cantonal tax proceedings were suspended. After the Federal Court gave its decision on 12 June 1990 concerning the federal taxes, cantonal tax proceedings were resumed on 24 July 1990 whereupon the applicant was requested to submit his observations. Following various requests for prolongation of the time- limit, the observations were filed on 24 October 1990. The applicant was invited to a hearing at the Cantonal Tax Administration on 12 December 1990. Following the applicant's request, the hearing was postponed until 6 February 1991. At this occasion, the applicant's lawyer was granted the possibility to file further observations. By letter of 15 March 1991, the lawyer stated that he would not file any further submissions. By order of 27 March 1992 the Cantonal Tax Administration imposed on the applicant a supplementary tax of 189,371 CHF, a fine of 109,438 CHF and interests of 96,232 CHF. The fine was imposed for evading cantonal and municipal taxes. The Tax Administration referred in its decision also to the establishment of the facts in, and the considerations of, the various decisions relating to the applicant's federal taxes. When determining the fine, the Cantonal Tax Administration relied, inter alia, on S. 225 of the Tax Statute of the Canton of Obwalden. According to this provision, in the case of tax evasion the fine will as a rule correspond to the amount of the taxes evaded. If culpability (Schuld) is not severe, the fine can be reduced by one third, in the case of severe culpability it can be raised to twice the amount. If the tax evasion is reported by the tax payer concerned before he has knowledge of the criminal proceedings, the fine will be reduced to one fifth of the taxes evaded. Proceedings before the Tax Appeals Commission On 29 April 1992 the applicant filed an appeal (Rekurs) with the Tax Appeals Commission (Steuerrekurskommission) of the Canton of Obwalden. The Cantonal Tax Administration filed its submissions in reply on 22 July 1992. A hearing was conducted on 22 April 1993 at which the applicant and his lawyer participated. It is unclear whether the hearing was public. In its decision of 22 April 1993, the Tax Appeals Commission reduced the fine to 94,685 CHF, while dismissing the remainder of the appeal. When determining the applicant's fine, the Tax Appeals Commission considered that a relatively long period of time had lapsed since the applicant had committed the offence. Proceedings before the Administrative Court On 3 September 1993 the applicant filed an administrative law appeal (Verwaltungsgerichtsbeschwerde), requesting the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) of the Canton of Obwalden to annul the fine. The Tax Appeals Commission filed its submissions in reply on 20 September 1993. The Administrative Court conducted a hearing on 11 January 1994 at which the applicant complained, inter alia, of the lack of independence of the members of the Tax Appeals Commission. On 11 January 1994 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant's appeal. In its decision it found that according to Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention it fell to the authorities to prove the applicant's guilt, rather than to the applicant to prove his innocence. The Court then assessed the applicant's various submissions in the Administrative Court proceedings. With reference, inter alia, to the applicant's tax declarations of 13 July and 15 September 1983, and to bank statements in the file, the Court found that his submissions did not appear credible. As a result, it referred to the conclusions of the Federal Court in its judgment of 8 July 1988 concerning the federal taxes. The Administrative Court further noted that the order of the Cantonal Tax Administration of 27 March 1992 had confronted the applicant with all facts leading to the applicant's culpability. He had therefore had the opportunity to defend himself in respect of all counts before the Tax Appeals Commission. In respect of the applicant's complaint about the length of the proceedings, the Court considered that the subject-matter of the case was extremely complex, as was confirmed by the many legal statements, the many judgments in the parallel proceedings concerning federal taxes, and the lengthy texts of the decisions. Insofar as the applicant complained of a breach of "ne bis idem", the Court found that a person committing tax evasion knew that with his faulty tax declaration he was evading both federal and cantonal taxes; his conduct had two limbs (zweigliedrige Tathandlung), and he could therefore be punished both according to Federal and to cantonal law. The Court also dealt with the applicant's complaint of a breach of "nulla poena sine lege" in that S. 225 of the Tax Statute of the Canton of Obwalden did not mention the maximum punishment. After analysing this provision, the Court found that it could not be said that the person committing tax evasion could be surprised by a punishment with which he did not reckon. To the extent that the applicant complained that the Tax Appeals Commission had not conducted its hearing in public, the Court noted that in its observations of 20 September 1993 the Tax Appeals Commission had not claimed that it had done so. It could also not be said that the applicant had waived his right hereto. On the other hand, the Court found that the applicant had had a public hearing before the Administrative Court itself which in fact had unlimited jurisdiction to examine the case. Proceedings before the Federal Court On 17 February 1994, the applicant filed a public law appeal (staatsrechtliche Beschwerde) which the Federal Court dismissed on 4 January 1995, the decision being served on the applicant on 27 April 1995. Insofar as the applicant complained of a breach of "ne bis in idem", the Court stated:

"It is true that only one tax declaration form had to be filled in for the cantonal and the federal taxes. However, two different taxes were at issue in respect of which two different public entities (Gemeinwesen) - the Confederation and the Canton

- were competent. Two different tax jurisdictions were concerned, who had to protect their different tax demands each with a different tax penal law." The Federal Court dismissed the applicant's complaints that the Administrative Court had not been independent as the latter had not limited its freedom of decision by considering the case-file concerning the federal taxes and in particular by having regard to the decisions of the Federal Court of 8 July 1988 and 12 June 1990. Rather, Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention required the judge to consider all relevant facts. This included previous proceedings if they stood in a factual relation with the present case. In fact, the applicant's submissions had been carefully examined by the previous instances. The Administrative Court, for instance, had discussed the applicant's submissions, rather than automatically taken over the Federal Court's previous conclusions as to the facts. The Federal Court further found that the applicant had belatedly introduced his complaint that certain members of the Tax Appeals Commission were not independent and impartial within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention. Thus, the applicant and his lawyer had been aware of the composition of the Tax Appeals Commission already on 22 April 1993, though they had only challenged the members on 11 January 1994. The Federal Court also found that the applicant had been sufficiently informed by letter of the Cantonal Tax Administration of 16 May 1987 as to the grounds for the criminal tax proceedings instituted against him. Moreover, at that time the proceedings concerning federal taxes were already pending before the Federal Court. The Court also noted that the applicant had had sufficient occasions orally to express himself on the facts and the evidence, for instance on 6 February 1991 before the Cantonal Tax Administration; on 22 April 1993 before the Cantonal Tax Appeals Commission; and at the hearing before the Administrative Court. The applicant also had the possibility before all instances to file written submissions. The Court further dismissed the applicant's complaint that the proceedings had not been conducted "within a reasonable time" as required by Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention. Thus, upon the applicant's request, proceedings had been suspended for over three years until 24 July 1990; in the eight months thereafter until 15 March 1991, only one set of submissions had been filed by the applicant, and it had only been possible to question him once. To the extent that the Tax Administration had required one year after 15 March 1991 to prepare the order of 27 March 1992, this could be explained with the complexity of the matter. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complains that he did not have an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention. Thus, after proceedings had been conducted against him concerning federal taxes, the proceedings concerning cantonal taxes served no further purpose (Leerlauf). This was confirmed by the decision of the Administrative Court of the Canton of Obwalden of 11 January 1994 which frequently referred to the previous decisions of the Federal Court of 8 July 1988 and 12 June 1990. The authorities in the second set of proceedings were not in a position to reach a conclusion differing from that in the first set of proceedings. 2. Under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention the applicant also complains that various judges of the Cantonal Tax Appeals Commission were not independent and impartial as they had already sat in the proceedings concerning the federal taxes. 3. The applicant complains that the proceedings in which he was involved were not conducted "within a reasonable time" as required by Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention. 4. Under Article 6 paras. 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention the applicant complains of the manner in which the Administrative Court reached its conclusions, in particular in respect of his tax declaration of 13 July 1983. He further complains that the authorities did not question him as to the mitigating and incriminating circumstances of the charges raised against him. It was irrelevant in this respect that he had sufficient opportunities to express himself. It was not up to him to do what the authorities should have done ex officio. In the present case, the authorities never asked him about the contractual basis in the relations between him and the C. company. In fact, the authorities merely took over charges which had been established in separate proceedings, and with a different burden of proof, namely of the Federal Tax Administration. As a result, he had not been informed in detail of the accusations against him as required by Article 6 para. 3 (a) of the Convention. 5. Under Article 7 of the Convention the applicant complains of a breach of the principle "nulla poena sine lege". He submits that Section 225 of the Tax Act of the Canton of Obwalden contains no upper limit of punishment, thus permitting an unlimited fine. 6. Under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 the applicant complains with reference to domestic case-law and doctrinal writings of a breach of "ne bis in idem" in that he was convicted of an offence in respect of which he had already previously been punished. Thus, he had been punished both for evading federal and cantonal taxes. Both sets of proceedings concerned his income from the C. company. In both sets of proceedings, only one tax declaration has to be filled out, and the offence concerned the truthfulness of the declaration. THE LAW 1. The applicant raises various complaints about the criminal proceedings in which he was involved. He relies on Article 6 paras. 1, 2 and 3 (Art. 6-1, 6-2, 6-3) of the Convention which state, insofar as relevant: "1. In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal ..." 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. 3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... b. to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; ... d. to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him." a) The applicant complains in two respects that he did not have an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. He submits, first, that, after the federal tax proceedings had been conducted against him, the authorities conducting the cantonal tax proceedings were not in a position to reach a conclusion which differed from that in the first set of proceedings. It is true that the Administrative Court in its decision of 11 January 1994 had regard to the findings of the Federal Court in its judgment of 8 July 1988 concerning the applicant's federal taxes. However, the Commission notes that that Court only did so after examining the applicant's submissions and in particular after considering that they were not credible as they contradicted his previous submissions. In fact, the Court did not regard itself bound by any previous decision. Indeed, as the Federal Court later pointed out in its decision of 4 January 1995, the Administrative Court had been required to consider all relevant facts, including those of previous proceedings if they stood in a factual relation with the present case. As a result, there is no indication that the Administrative Court did not have full jurisdiction to examine the case. Second, the applicant complains that various judges of the Cantonal Tax Appeals Commission had already sat in the federal tax proceedings. The Commission notes the decision of the Federal Court of 4 January 1995 according to which the applicant and his lawyer had been aware of the composition of the Tax Appeals Commission already on 22 April 1993 when they participated at the hearing, though they only challenged the members on 11 January 1994 in the proceedings before the Administrative Court. The Commission need not resolve whether in this respect the applicant could be considered as having waived his right to an independent and impartial tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. Thus, the applicant was able to appeal against the decision of the Tax Appeals Commission to the Administrative Court. In respect of this Court, however, the Commission has just concluded that there was no indication that it did not have full jurisdiction. b) The applicant complains that proceedings were not conducted "within a reasonable time" as required by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. In the present case, the proceedings commenced on 16 May 1987 when the Obwalden Cantonal Tax Administration instituted criminal proceedings on account of tax evasion of cantonal and municipal taxes. The proceedings ended on 27 April 1995 when the Federal Court's judgment of 4 January 1995 was served on the applicant. The relevant period therefore lasted 7 years, 11 months and 11 days. The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the length of the proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of the case and having regard in particular to the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and that of the relevant authorities (see Eur. Court HR, Mansur v. Turkey judgment of 8 June 1995, Series A no. 319-B, p. 51, para. 61). The present case concerned the evasion of cantonal taxes. In the Commission's opinion, the case was of a certain complexity, justifying to some extent the length of the proceedings conducted against the applicant. The Commission must next examine whether the applicant contributed to the length of the proceedings. In this respect, it notes that on 10 June 1987 the applicant requested the suspension of the cantonal tax proceedings. The proceedings were only resumed on 24 July 1990, i.e. after more than three years. Moreover, after the proceedings were resumed on 24 July 1990 the applicant filed his submissions only after various requests for prolongation of the time-limit on 24 October 1990. Thereafter, the applicant was invited to a hearing at the Cantonal Tax Administration on 12 December 1990. However, he requested a prolongation of the time- limit, and he was eventually heard on 6 February 1991. In the Commission's opinion, to this extent the length of the proceedings cannot be attributed to the respondent Government. As regards the authorities' conduct, the Commission notes that, after the applicant's lawyer stated that he would not file any further submissions on 15 March 1991, the Cantonal Tax Administration gave its decision within approximately one year, i.e. on 27 March 1992. Again, after the applicant filed his appeal with the Tax Appeals Commission on 29 April 1992, the latter gave its decision within one year, i.e. on 22 April 1993. After the applicant filed his appeal with the Administrative Court on 3 September 1993, the latter gave its decision after approximately four months on 11 January 1994. Finally, on 17 February 1994 the applicant filed a public law appeal which the Federal Court dismissed on 4 January 1995, the decision being served on the applicant on 27 April 1995, i.e. after approximately 14 months. In the Commission's opinion, no unduly lengthy periods of inactivity on the part of the authorities transpire. In assessing the length of the proceedings, the Commission has finally considered that the Tax Appeals Commission, when determining the applicant's fine in its decision of 22 April 1993, considered that a relatively long period of time had lapsed since the applicant had committed the offence. Having regard to the complexity of the case, to the fact that some of the delays were due to adjournments requested by the applicant, and that the length of proceedings was considered when determining his fine, the Commission does not find an appearance of a violation of the requirement of "reasonable time" referred to in Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention. c) Under Article 6 paras. 1, 2 and 3 (Art. 6-1, 6-2, 6-3) of the Convention the applicant complains of the unfairness of the proceedings. He complains of the manner in which the Administrative Court reached its conclusions, in particular in respect of his tax declaration of 13 July 1983. He further complains that the authorities did not question him as to the mitigating and incriminating circumstances of the charges raised against him. In fact, the authorities merely took over charges which had been established in separate proceedings, and with a different burden of proof, namely of the Federal Tax Administration. As a result, he had not been informed in detail of the accusations against him as required by Article 6 para. 3 (a) (Art. 6-3-a) of the Convention. The Commission recalls that it is not the Convention organs' function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court unless they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see Eur. Court HR, Schenk v. Switzerland judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A no. 140, p. 29, para. 43). It is true that the applicant also complains of the unfairness of the proceedings. To the extent that he complains that he was not sufficiently questioned by the courts, the Commission notes that the applicant had sufficient occasions, at the latest in the proceedings before the Administrative Court, to put forward any matter which he regarded pertinent to his case. Insofar as the applicant complains under Article 6 para. 3 (a) (Art. 6-3-a) of the Convention that he was not informed in detail of the charges raised against him, the Commission notes that the letter of the Cantonal Tax Administration of 16 May 1987 sufficiently stated, with reference to the relevant legal provisions, the amounts received from the C. company which he had not declared, and the years to which the proceedings referred to. Insofar as the applicant complains of the manner in which the evidence was assessed, the Commission recalls that, as a rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them. The Convention organs' task is to ascertain whether the proceedings considered as a whole, including the way in which evidence was taken, were fair (see Eur. Court HR, Asch v. Austria judgment of 26 April 1991, Series A no. 203, p. 10, para. 26). In the present case, the Commission finds no indication that the applicant, who was represented throughout the proceedings by a lawyer, could not put forward any evidence which he regarded pertinent, or that the proceedings were unfairly conducted in any other way. d) It follows that in this respect the applicant's complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected according to Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. 2. Under Article 7 (Art. 7) of the Convention the applicant complains of a breach of the principle "nulla poena sine lege". He submits that Section 225 of the Tax Act of the Canton of Obwalden contains no upper limit of punishment, thus permitting an unlimited fine. Article 7 para. 1 (Art. 7-1) of the Convention states: "No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed." According to the Convention organs' case-law, Article 7 para. 1 (Art. 7-1) of the Convention embodies the principle that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty, and the principle that the criminal law must not be extensively construed to an accused's detriment. From these principles, it follows that an offence must be clearly defined by the law (see Eur. Court HR, Cantoni v. France judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, No. 20, p. 1627, para. 29). The Commission notes that according to S. 225 of the Tax Statute of the Canton of Obwalden, the fine will as a rule correspond to the amount of the taxes evaded. If culpability is not severe, the fine can be reduced by one third, in the case of severe culpability it can be raised to double the amount. If the tax evasion is reported by the tax payer concerned before he has knowledge of the criminal proceedings, the fine will be reduced to one fifth of the taxes evaded. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that, contrary to the requirements of Article 7 para. 1 (Art. 7-1) of the Convention, S. 225 of the Tax Statute permitted an unlimited punishment. This part of the application is manifestly ill-founded according to Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. 3. Under Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (P7-4) the applicant complains of a breach of "ne bis in idem" in that he was convicted of an offence in respect of which he had already previously been punished. Thus, he was punished for evading both federal and cantonal taxes. However, both sets of proceedings concerned his income from the C. company. Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (P7-4) to the Convention state: "1. No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State. 2. The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not prevent the reopening of the case in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case." The Commission recalls the Convention organs' case-law according to which the aim of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (P7-4) is to prohibit the repetition of criminal proceedings which have been concluded by a final decision (see Eur. Court HR, Gradinger v. Austria judgment of 23 October 1995, Series A no. 328-C, p. 65, para. 53). In the present case, criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on 12 December 1985 on account of evading federal taxes. In particular, the applicant was accused of having received payment from the C. company. As a result, he was eventually fined 109,659 CHF. This fine was confirmed in last resort by the Federal Court on 12 June 1990. Meanwhile, on 16 May 1987 criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on account of evading cantonal and municipal taxes in view of the payments which he had received from the C. company. The applicant was eventually fined 94,685 CHF. This decision was confirmed by the Federal Court on 4 January 1995. The issue arises whether in the second proceedings the applicant was "tried or punished again ... for an offence for which (he had) already been finally acquitted or convicted" within the meaning of Article 4 para. 1 of Protocol No. 7 (P7-4-1). This provision does not refer to "the same offence", but refers rather to trial and punishment "again ... for an offence" (see Gradinger v. Austria, Comm. Report 19.5.94, para. 75, Eur. Court HR, Series A no. 328-C, p. 77). Thus, the Court found in the Gradinger case that "both impugned decisions were based on the same conduct". As a result, it found in that case a breach of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 (P7-4) (see Eur. Court HR, ibid. p. 66, para. 55). In the present case, the Commission has had regard to the decision of the Federal Court of 4 January 1995 according to which in Switzerland two different taxes are at issue, in particular the cantonal and the federal tax. As a result, there are two different jurisdictions which have to protect their different tax demands each with a different penal law. In the Commission's opinion, therefore, it cannot be said that the same conduct of the applicant was at issue in the different proceedings in which he was involved. Rather, each jurisdiction established independently the conduct on the basis of which it imposed the taxes on the applicant. Indeed, in the tax forms in use at the time in the Canton of Obwalden, certain questions had to be answered separately for the assessment of the cantonal and the federal taxes. If he only had to fill in one form for both taxes, this can be explained with practical considerations. A confirmation herefor can be seen in the decision of the Administrative Court of 11 January 1994 which, as the Commission has found, examined the applicant's case with full jurisdiction and without being bound by the assessment of the applicant's federal taxes. As a result, it cannot be said that the applicant was "tried or punished again ... for an offence for which (he had) already been acquitted or convicted" within the meaning of Article 4 para. 1 of Protocol No. 7 (P7-4-1). It follows that the remainder of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Commission, by a majority, DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE. M.F. BUQUICCHIO M.P. PELLONPÄÄ Secretary President to the First Chamber of the First Chamber