AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY

Application No. 11592/85
by B.A. JUBY
against the United Kingdom


        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
16 July 1987, the following members being present:

                MM.  C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                     J.A. FROWEIN
                     S. TRECHSEL
                     F. ERMACORA
                     E. BUSUTTIL
                     A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                     A. WEITZEL
                     J.C. SOYER
                     H.G. SCHERMERS
                     H. DANELIUS
                     G. BATLINER
                     H. VANDENBERGHE
                Mrs.  G.H. THUNE
                Sir  Basil HALL
                MM.  F. MARTINEZ
                     C.L. ROZAKIS

                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 21 March 1985
by B.A. JUBY against the United Kingdom and registered on 17 June 1985
under file No. 11592/85;

        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the
Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

        The facts as they have been submitted on behalf of the
applicant, a British citizen born in 1936, who is a doctor by
profession, and who is represented before the Commission by Mr.  K.
Walsh, an Irish Solicitor practising in Belgium, may be summarised
as follows:

        The applicant has previously made two applications to the
Commission.  The first, Application No. 9793/82, was declared
inadmissible by the Commission on 13 March 1984.  It related to the
applicant's complaints concerning the discrimination which he alleged
arises because of the application of the income tax laws in the United
Kingdom when related to the Social Security Act 1975.

        The second, Application No. 11254/84, was declared
inadmissible by the Commission on 10 December 1984.  It alleged that
the Rapporteur did not fully consider the applicant's complaints in
the first application and that in particular the applicant's
complaints were misdescribed in the Commission's decision on its
admissibility.

        In the present application the applicant complains that the
Commission has misunderstood the two previous applications and in
addition, in the second application, reached a decision prior to the
receipt of additional information from the applicant which the
applicant had informed the Commission would be sent.

        In support of his present application, the applicant now
submits further legal arguments together with additional information
relating to his national insurance contributions made between 1975 and
April 1986.


COMPLAINTS

        The applicant complains of discriminatory interference with
his rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.  He invokes
Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1.

        The applicant further complains that the Commission, in his
previous application No. 11254/84 which was declared inadmissible by
the Commission on 10 December 1984, took a decision on admissibility
prior to the receipt of additional information which was to be
provided by the applicant.

        The applicant also complains that he has been denied, because
of the doctrine of Parliament Sovereignty, any effective remedy before
a national authority in respect of his complaints contrary to Article
13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

1.      The applicant complains first of a discriminatory interference
with his rights guaranteed by Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).  He invokes
Article 14 (Art. 14+P1-1) of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1
of Protocol No. 1.  The applicant further complains that in his previous
application No. 11254/84 the Commission failed to await relevant new
information which the applicant had told the Commission he was going to provide
prior to any decision being taken by the Commission on admissibility.

        The Commission finds that the applicant's complaints concern
substantially the same matters as he complained of in his two earlier
applications, Nos. 9793/82, Dec. 13.3.84 and 11254/84, Dec 10.12.84
which the Commission has already examined and rejected.  By virtue of Article
27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention, the Commission may not deal
with any petition which is "substantially the same as a matter which has
already been examined by the Commission" unless it contains "relevant new
information".

        The applicant's submissions seek to restate those made in
relation to his previous applications and to elaborate the legal
reasoning previously submitted and to show that the previous
submissions were incorrectly evaluated by the Commission in its
decision on the admissibility of the applicant's first application.
It is clear, however, that such submissions do not constitute
"relevant new information" within the meaning of Article 27 para. 1
(b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.

        In addition the applicant has submitted details of the actual
contributions for which he was liable.  These figures illustrate the
precise way in which the matters about which he complained in his
first and second applications affected him.  However, in view of the
submissions which the applicant made in support of those applications,
the mere provision of the figures to which the tax system about which
the applicant complains applied does not add anything to the substance
of the original complaint.  This material is not, therefore, "relevant new
information" within the meaning of Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the
Convention.

        The applicant has also submitted details of the contributions
which he has been required to make for the period subsequent to the
lodging of both his first and second applications.  These
contributions have been treated in accordance with the same principles
and legal rules for tax purposes as those about which the applicant
complained in his first application.  In these circumstances the
contributions for this further period merely constitute a further
example of the application of the same legal regime to the applicant
as that about which he complained in his previous applications.
Accordingly this material does not constitute relevant new information
within the meaning of Article 27 para. 1 (b) (Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention.

        It follows that the Commission is precluded by Article 27 para. 1 (b)
(Art. 27-1-b) of the Convention from dealing with this aspect of the
application.


2.      The applicant also complains that he has been denied because
of the doctrine of Parliament Sovereignty any effective remedy before
a national authority in respect of his complaints contrary to Article
13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.

        Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention provides:

        "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this
        Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before
        a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has
        been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

        The Commission recalls its established case-law in relation to
the scope of application of Article 13 (Art. 13).  It has held that:

        "It cannot be deduced from Article 13 (Art. 13) that there must be a
        remedy against legislation as such which is considered not to
        be in conformity with the Convention.  Such a remedy would in
        effect amount to some sort of judicial review of legislation
        because any other review - generally sufficient for Article 13
        (Art. 13) which requires only a "remedy before a national authority" -
        could hardly be effective concerning legislation.  Without a
        clear indication in the text Article 13 (Art. 13) cannot be extended
        that far....  Article 13 (Art. 13) does not relate to legislation and
        does not guarantee a remedy by which legislation could be
        controlled as to its conformity with the Convention."
        (Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, Comm.
        Report 14.12.79, Series B no. 39, p. 49 para. 177).

        It follows that this aspect of the applicant's complaint is manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the
Convention.

        For these reasons, the Commission

        DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.


  Secretary to the Commission         President of the Commission



         (H.C. KRÜGER)                      (C.A. NØRGAARD)