34 Legal Digest of International Fair Trial Rights b) Entitlements deriving from social security In Feldbrugge v the Netherlands, the European Court of Human Rights for the first time had to decide on the applicability of Article 6(1) of ECHR to the field of social security, namely the compulsory public insurance health scheme.95 The European Court acknowledged that there exists great diversity in the legislation and case law of States concerning the entitlement to health insurance benefits under social security schemes. Some States treat it as a public law right, whereas some treat it as a private law right, and others operate a mixed system.96 In this case, the Court evaluated the relevant features of the public law, such as the character of the legislation, the compulsory nature of insurance against certain risks, and the assumption by public bodies of responsibility for ensuring social protection and private law. While none of the corresponding features of private law were in that case deemed decisive on their own, taken together and cumulatively they were treated as conferring an entitlement with the character of a civil right. Referring to the Feldbrugge v the Netherlands case, the European Court of Human Rights has stated that “today the general rule is that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6–1) does apply in the field of social insurance”.97 The European Court took an even more far-reaching approach in Salesi v Italy than in Feldbrugge v the Netherlands by extending the applicability of Article 6(1) to welfare assistance which is, unlike social security insurance, not based on individual financial contributions. While acknowledging the difference between the two cases, the Court held that Mrs. Salesi was not affected in her relations with the administrative authorities as such, acting in the exercise of discretionary powers; she suffered an interference with her means of subsistence and was claiming an individual, economic right flowing from specific rules laid down in a statute giving effect to the Italian Constitution. In sum, the Court did not see any convincing reasons to distinguish between Mrs. Salesi’s right to welfare benefits and the rights to social insurance benefits asserted by Mrs. Feldbrugge.98 1.2.3 Cases excluded by the protection granted to civil proceedings The Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights have determined that civil proceedings do not include: (a) Extradition, expulsion or deportation procedures, although certain procedural guarantees may apply to such proceedings by application of Article 13 of the ICCPR and Article 1 of Protocol 7 of the ECHR (See also 1.3). (b) General taxation issues and taxation assessments.99 It should be noted, however, that a tax-related offence may well fall under the scope of a “criminal charge” thus requiring the application of fair trial guarantees in that way (See also 1.1.2). 95 Feldbrugge v the Netherlands [1986] ECHR 4, para 27. 96 Feldbrugge v the Netherlands [1986] ECHR 4, para 29. 97 Salesi v Italy [1993] ECHR 14, para 19. 98 Salesi v Italy [1993] ECHR 14, para 19. 99 X v France [1992] ECHR 45. Contrast with the right to recover money paid in tax: see National & Provincial Building Society and Others v the United Kingdom [1997] ECHR 87.