CCPR/C/48/D/450/1991

Communication No. 450/1991, I. P. v. Finland (decision

of 26 July 1993, adopted at the forty-eighth session)

Submitted by:

I. P. (name deleted)

Alleged victim:

The author

State party:

Finland

Date of communication:

30 July 1990 (initial submission)

The Human Rights Committee, established under article 28 of the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,

Meeting on 26 July 1993,

Adopts the following:

Decision on admissibility

1.

The author of the communication is I. P., a Finnish citizen, born in

1945, and at present residing in Naarajдrvi, Finland. He claims to be a

victim of violations by Finland of articles 2, 5, 14 and 17 of the Covenant.

Facts as submitted

2.1 In 1979, the author founded a data-processing company, but continued to

work as an employee in another company until 1983, when he became an

independent businessman. In November 1985, a tax audit was conducted over

the books of two companies, H. K. and N. O., with which the author had

concluded business contracts; the author had worked as an employee for one of

these companies before starting his own business. On 27 June 1986, the

provincial Tax Office ordered the two companies to pay taxes and social

security contributions on the author's salary, since, according to the audit,

the author was fulfilling his duties towards these companies as an employee,

and not as a business partner. According to the author, the tax inspectors

wrongly informed the companies that he was three years in arrears with the

payment of his taxes.

2.2 Subsequently, the two companies deducted the amount paid in taxes from

the payment they owed the author, thereby causing him financial distress,

which threatened the continuity of his business. Thereupon, the author

addressed a letter to the Tax Office, requesting it to annul its decision of

27 June 1986; the Tax Office treated the letter as a complaint and forwarded

it to the Administrative County Court. The Court, in December 1986,

dismissed the case since the author had no standing to appeal, as the

decision concerned companies H. K. and N. O., and not the author.

2.3 In May 1987, the author started a civil action against the two companies

to recover the amount they owed him. The case was dismissed by the District

Court of Pieksдmдki in July 1987. In April 1989, the Court of Appeal ordered

the companies to pay the author the full amount of their outstanding debts.

Thereupon the companies paid the author, but deducted a certain percentage.

The author then filed a complaint with the East Finland Court of Appeal, in

order to collect the percentage.

2.4 On 3 September 1987, the author filed a criminal complaint of slander

against the tax inspectors, since they allegedly had disclosed false

information about him to the two companies. In December 1987, the author was

informed that the investigation was discontinued. The author then complained

to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, who concluded, in September 1989, that there

was no evidence of an incorrect decision by the tax inspectors.

2.5 In April 1988, the author learned that the police were conducting a

criminal investigation against him, for false denunciation. At the end of

1988, he was informed that the investigation was discontinued. In turn, the

author, in October 1988, filed a request for criminal prosecution of the

rural deputy police chief, likewise for false denunciation. However, the

County Prosecutor decided not to initiate a prosecution, for lack of

evidence; the author was informed of this decision in July 1989.

2.6 The author further has certain grievances against the tax board and tax

appeal board, which stem from a complaint against his tax assessment for

1986. He filed a criminal complaint with the police against the Rural Tax

Inspector for forgery of documents pertaining to his case. The Public

Prosecutor, however, refused to initiate prosecution, on the ground that

there was no evidence that a criminal act had been committed.

2.7 In November 1989, the author requested the public prosecutor of the East

Finland Court of Appeal to begin a criminal investigation against the tax

authorities. On 3 April 1990, the prosecutor informed the author that, after

a preliminary investigation, he had decided not to prosecute.

2.8 In February 1990, the author requested the County Tax Office Director to

take action against its employees because of their alleged negligence in his

case. The Office refused to take action. The author then filed a complaint

with the Administrative County Court; he further requested the Director

General of the National Board of Taxation to order the County Tax Director to

reply to his letters and to correct her mistakes. The Director General did

not respond to his request. In May 1990, the Administrative County Court

upheld the decision of the County Tax Office not to start investigations.

Complaint

3.

The author claims to be a victim of a violation of article 17 of the

Covenant, since the tax inspectors disclosed sensitive information about the

payment of his taxes to third parties. The author claims that this

information was false, and that the tax officials did not give him an

opportunity to correct the information given, nor corrected it themselves.

He further claims to be a victim of a violation of article 14, since, in

determining his status as employee, decisions affecting his rights and

obligations were made without hearing him, and he had no right to appeal

these decisions.

State party's observations and the author's comments thereon

4.1 The State party, by submission of 14 October 1991, argues that the

communication is inadmissible on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic

remedies and incompatibility with the provisions of the Covenant.

4.2 As regards the author's complaint under article 17 of the Covenant, the

State party concedes that the author has filed criminal complaints against

the tax inspectors with the police. However, it submits that the author has

not pursued his constitutional right to bring a private action against the

officials concerned. The State party argues that this remedy has in similar

cases led to an effective prosecution of public officials.

4.3 The State party further submits that the disclosure of information by

the Tax Office was based on legal regulations and was necessary in order to

determine the taxation of the two companies involved. It argues that the

author has failed to substantiate his claim that the disclosure violated his

rights under article 17 of the Covenant.

4.4 As regards the author's claim that he is a victim of a violation of

article 14, since he was not heard in the administrative procedure, the State

party argues that the Tax Office's decision to order the author's employers

to pay taxes had no effect on the legal position of the author. It further

argues that, if the Tax Office would have decided, upon receipt of the

author's tax return concerning the fiscal year 1985, that he was an employee

rather than an independent businessman, this decision would have been subject

to appeal with the County Administrative Court. However, the State party

notes that the author did not file tax returns for the fiscal years 1985,

1986 and 1987, but only for 1983 and 1984.

4.5 The State party further argues that the imposition of a tax or matters

of taxation in general do not constitute the determination of rights and

obligations in a suit at law.

5.

The author, on 17 December 1991, informed the Committee that he intended

to comment on the State party's submission by January 1992. However, no

comments were received, in spite of a reminder sent on 19 June 1992.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human

Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure,

decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the

Covenant.

6.2 The Committee turns first to the author's claim under article 14. The

Committee notes that whether matters relating to the imposition of taxes are

or are not "rights or obligations in a suit at law" does not have to be

determined, because in any case the author was not denied the right to have

his claims concerning the decision by the Tax Office heard before an

independent tribunal. As for the author's claim that he was denied the

possibility of appeal, even were these matters to fall within the scope

ratione materiae of article 14, the right to appeal relates to a criminal

charge, which is not here in issue. This part of the communication is

therefore inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.

6.3 As regards the author's claim that the disclosure by tax inspectors of

information concerning the author's payment of taxes constitutes a violation

of article 17 of the Covenant, the Committee notes that the State party has

argued that domestic remedies exist, which the author may still pursue. The

Committee also notes that the State party submits that the disclosure of the

information was based on lawful regulations and necessary to determine the

taxation of the companies H. K. and N. O. The Committee observes that

article 17 protects everyone from arbitrary or unlawful interference with his

privacy and from unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. After

careful examination of the information before it, the Committee considers

that the author has not substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, his

claim that he was a victim of an arbitrary and unlawful interference with his

privacy, nor that the disclosure of information by the tax inspectors could

constitute an unlawful attack on his honour and reputation. These aspects of

the communication are, therefore, inadmissible under article 2 of the

Optional Protocol.

7.

The Human Rights Committee therefore decides:

(a) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of

the Optional Protocol;

(b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to

the author.

[Done in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original

version.]