Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application Nos. 14561/89, 14657/89, 15105/89, 15343/89,

15712/89, 15908/89, 15988/90, 16118/90, 16513/90, 16583/90,

16843/90, 16896/90, 16897/90, 17001/90, 17241/90, 17252/90,

17675/91, 17883/91, 18615/91, 19590/92, 19591/92, 20311/92

and 22532/93

J.S. and others

against

the Netherlands

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 23 January 1996)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

PART I : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

a. General background . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

b. Particular circumstances of the individual cases4

c. Complaints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

PART II : SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

INTRODUCTION

1. This Report relates to twenty-three applications introduced under

Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by J.S. and others against the

Netherlands. They were registered on different dates between 20 January

1989 and 26 August 1993. The applications are set out in the Appendix

to the Report.

2. The applicants mentioned under Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 18, 20

and 21 in the Appendix were represented by Mr G.W.A. Bernards. The

applicants mentioned under Nos. 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19 and

22 were represented by MM. Th.J.H.M. Linssen and A.A.M. van Beek. The

applicant mentioned under No. 14 was represented by Mr E.G.J.

Hendriksen. The applicant mentioned under No. 16 was represented by Mr

A.J. Boonstra. The applicants mentioned under No. 23 were represented

by Mr J.P.E. Baakman.

The Government of the Netherlands were represented by their

Agent, Mr K. de Vey Mestdagh, of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign

Affairs.

3. On 7 September 1995 the Commission (Second Chamber) decided to

join the applications and to declare them admissible. It then

proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the

Convention which provides as follows:

"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to

it:

a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake

together with the representatives of the parties an examination

of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the

effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all

necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the

Commission;

b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of

the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly

settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights

as defined in this Convention."

4. The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had

reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 23 January 1996 it

adopted this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of

the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of

the solution reached.

5. The following members were present when the Report was adopted:

Mr. H. DANELIUS, President

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

a. General background

6. According to the Council Regulations (EEC) No. 856/84 and No.

857/84, implemented in the Netherlands by Ordinance no. J 1731 on the

Super Levy of 18 April 1984 (Beschikking Superheffing - hereinafter

referred to as the "1984 Ordinance"), dairy farmers are allowed to

produce a certain amount of milk, calculated on the basis of their

production capacity prior to 1 April 1984 (the "reference quantity").

For any surplus production a levy (superheffing) must be paid.

Under certain conditions dairy producers may be allotted an extra

reference quantity under the 1984 Ordinance, the Super Levy Ordinance

for Farm Succession Undermanning Situations (Beschikking Superheffing

Bedrijfsopvolgingssituaties Onderbezetting) of 16 May 1986, the

Additional Super Levy Ordinance (Beschikking Aanvulling Superheffing)

and the 1985 Super Levy Ordinance (Beschikking Superheffing 1985).

If a plot of dairy farm land is sold, a corresponding part of the

reference quantity may be transferred to the new owner under Section 7

para. 1 of the 1985 Super Levy Ordinance.

7. Pursuant to Section 46 of the Agriculture Act (Landbouwwet), an

appeal against a decision concerning, inter alia, the allocation of a

reference quantity can be filed with the Industrial Appeals Tribunal

(College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven), a judicial body set up

under the Industrial Jurisdiction Act (Wet Administratieve Rechtspraak

Bedrijfsorganisatie). No appeal lies against a judgment of the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

Pursuant to Sections 74 and 75 para. 1 of the Industrial Appeals

Act the Crown (de Kroon), i.e. the Queen and the responsible Minister,

can decide that a judgment of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal is not

to be followed or is not to be followed in its entirety if, in the

Crown's opinion, the consequences of that judgment are contrary to the

general interest.

8. On 1 January 1994 the General Administrative Law Act (Algemene

Wet Bestuursrecht) entered into force, laying down new uniform rules

of administrative law procedure. On that same date the Industrial

Appeals Act was replaced by the Industrial Organisation Administrative

Law Act (Wet Bestuursrechtspraak Bedrijfsorganisatie). Under Section 19

of that Act, the new uniform rules laid down in the General

Administrative Law Act also govern the procedure before the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal.

There is no provision in either the General Administrative Law

Act or the Industrial Organisation Administrative Law Act empowering

any executive authority to interfere with the binding force of a

judgment.

b. Particular circumstances of the individual cases

(1) Application No. 14561/89 - J.S.

9. The applicant was born in 1952 and resides at Veulen-Venray. On

20 June 1984 he applied for a reference quantity under the 1984

Ordinance.

10. On 20 August 1985 the provincial Director of Agriculture and Food

Supply (Directeur voor Landbouw en Voedselvoorziening, hereinafter

referred to as the "Director") rejected the applicant's request for a

reference quantity. His subsequent appeal to the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal was rejected on 3 August 1988.

(2) Application No. 14657/89 - P.B. and A.B.

11. The first applicant was born in 1921. He died during the

proceedings before the Commission. The second applicant, born in 1962,

resides in Dongen. As from 1 January 1984, until the first applicant's

death, they formed a partnership (maatschap). On 8 June 1984 they

applied for a reference quantity under the 1984 Ordinance.

12. On 6 November 1984 the Director partially granted the applicants'

request for a reference quantity. They filed an objection against this

decision with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Minister van

Landbouw en Visserij, hereinafter referred to as the "Minister").

13. On 23 August 1985 the Minister rejected the applicant's

objection. On 2 September 1985 the applicants appealed to the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal. On 1 June 1988 the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal quashed the Minister's decision and ordered the Minister to

take a new decision with due regard to the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal's findings.

14. On 20 June 1988, the Minister fixed a new reference quantity. The

applicants' appeal against this decision with the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal was rejected on 5 October 1989.

(3) Application No. 15105/89 - C.A. and W.H. VAN DEN BERG

15. The applicants were born in 1943 and 1947 respectively and both

reside in Oploo. On 21 June 1984 they applied for a reference quantity

under the 1984 Ordinance.

16. On 21 September 1984 the Director rejected the applicants'

request. The applicants' objection to the Minister was rejected on 21

March 1985. Their subsequent appeal to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal

was rejected on 24 August 1988 by the President of the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal. Their objection against the President's decision was

rejected on 7 November 1988 by the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

(4) Application No. 15343/89 - A.A. and E.A.

17. The applicants were born in 1926 and 1958 respectively and both

reside in Haps. On 26 June 1984 they applied for a reference quantity

under the 1984 Ordinance.

18. On 7 December 1984 the Director allotted to them a reference

quantity, which was less than they had applied for. The Minister

rejected the applicants' objection on 12 April 1985. Their subsequent

appeal to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal was rejected on 2 February

1989. (5) Application No. 15712/89 - J.W. JANSEN

19. The applicant was born in 1936 and resides in Dongen. On

25 June 1984 he applied for a reference quantity under the 1984

Ordinance. On 19 October 1984 the Director rejected his request. The

applicant's objection was rejected by the Minister on 11 March 1986.

20. On 26 March 1986 the applicant appealed to the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal. Following an initial decision by the President of the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal against which the applicant had

successfully filed an objection, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal

rejected the applicant's appeal on 10 May 1989.

(6) Application No. 15908/89 - J.B. and M.B.

21. The applicants were both born in 1927 and both reside in Wanroy.

On 28 June 1984 they applied for a reference quantity under the 1984

Ordinance. On 12 May 1986 the Director rejected the applicants' request

for a reference quantity. They filed an appeal against the Director's

decision with the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

22. Following an initial rejection of the applicants' appeal by the

President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal on 13 January 1989, the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicants' appeal against the

decision of 12 May 1986 on 7 June 1989.

(7) Application No. 15988/90 - F.C. VAN OIRSCHOT

23. The applicant was born in 1932 and resides in Boxtel. On

7 June 1984 he applied for a reference quantity under the 1984

Ordinance. On 14 September 1984 the Director rejected the applicant's

request. His objection with the Minister was rejected on 30 July 1985.

24. The applicant's subsequent appeal to the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal was rejected on 7 June 1989.

(8) Application No. 16118/90 - Th.C.M. GIEBELS

25. The applicant was born in 1949 and resides in Mierlo. On

24 June 1984 he applied for a reference quantity under the 1984

Ordinance. The Minister rejected the applicant's request on 2 January

1985.

26. On 9 June 1986 the applicant submitted a new application for a

reference quantity. The second application was based on the Additional

Super Levy Ordinance. On 19 December 1986 the Minister rejected the

request. The applicant appealed to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal on

15 January 1987. On 15 November 1989 the Industrial Appeals Tribunal

rejected the applicant's appeal.

(9) Application No. 16513/90 - G.J.T. WILLEMSSEN

27. The applicant was born in 1930 and resides in Overloon. On

6 February 1986 he applied for a reference quantity under the Super

Levy Ordinance 1985.

28. The Minister rejected the applicant's request on

31 December 1986. On 23 January 1987 the applicant filed an appeal with

the Industrial Appeals Tribunal. The Industrial Appeals Tribunal

rejected the applicant's appeal on 10 January 1990.

(10) Application No. 16583/90 - H.P.J. SIMONS

29. The applicant was born in 1932 and resides in Haaren. On

14 June 1984 he applied for a reference quantity under the 1984

Ordinance. On 31 August 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food

Supply of the province of Noord-Brabant allotted to the applicant a

reference quantity, which was less than the applicant had applied for.

30. On 26 September 1984 the applicant filed an objection against the

decision of 31 August 1984 with the Minister, who rejected it on

13 May 1985. On 20 May 1985 the applicant appealed to the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal.

31. On 22 January 1987 the President of the Tribunal granted the

applicant's request for an interim measure, provisionally holding that

the applicant's request for a reference quantity was justified. On

4 April 1989 the Minister amended his decision of 13 May 1985. In view

of the amended decision, the applicant supplemented his appeal to the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal on 12 April 1989. The Industrial Appeals

Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal on 6 December 1989.

(11) Application No. 16843/90 - J.O. and C.O.

32. The applicants were born in 1952 and 1954 respectively and both

reside in Venhorst. The applicants form a partnership. On 25 June 1984

they applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of the 1984

Ordinance, which the Director rejected on 31 October 1984.

33. The applicants' objection to the Minister was rejected on

5 July 1985. Their subsequent appeal was rejected by the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal on 16 November 1989.

(12) Application No. 16896/90 - J.S. and Th.S.

34. The applicants were born in 1931 and 1940 respectively and reside

in Haastrecht. On 21 June 1984 the applicants applied for a reference

quantity under the 1984 Ordinance, which was rejected by the Director

on 22 March 1985.

35. The applicants' objection was rejected by the Minister on

18 March 1986. Their subsequent appeal was rejected by the President

of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal on 28 June 1989. The applicants'

objection against the President's decision was rejected by the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal on 25 October 1989.

(13) Application No. 16897/90 - J.W. and D.W.

36. The applicants were born in 1942 and 1946 respectively and reside

in Boornzwaag. The applicants form a partnership. On 22 June 1984 they

applied for a reference quantity under the 1984 Ordinance, which was

rejected by the Director on 3 October 1984.

37. The applicants' objection was rejected by the Minister on

23 August 1985. Their subsequent appeal to the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal was rejected on 11 October 1989.

(14) Application No. 17001/90 - J.B.G. KLINK

38. The applicant was born in 1920 and resides in Laag Zuthem. On

14 June 1984 he applied for a reference quantity under the 1984

Ordinance, which was rejected by the Director on 15 August 1986.

39. The applicant's appeal against the Director's decision was

rejected by the Industrial Appeals Tribunal on 6 December 1989.

(15) Application No. 17241/90 - F.S.

40. The applicant was born in 1966 and resides in St. Oedenrode. He

applied for a reference quantity under the Super Levy Ordinance for

Farm Succession Undermanning Situations on 29 July 1986. The Director

rejected this request on 18 November 1986.

41. The applicant's objection to the Minister was rejected on

30 July 1987. His subsequent appeal to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal

was rejected on 8 November 1989 by the President of the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal. The applicant's objection against the President's

decision was rejected on 13 February 1990 by the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal.

(16) Application No. 17252/90 - H. BRAAM

42. The applicant was born in 1945 and resides at Kiel-Windeweer. On

8 June 1984 the applicant applied for a reference quantity under the

1984 Ordinance. On 21 September 1984 the Director allotted to the

applicant a reference quantity, which was less than he had applied for.

43. The applicant's objection with the Minister was rejected on

22 May 1985. The applicant's subsequent appeal to the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal was rejected on 17 August 1989 by the President of the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal. The applicant's objection against the

President's decision was rejected on 31 January 1990 by the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal.

(17) Application No. 17675/91 - A.J. VERSMISSEN

44. The applicant was born in 1937 and resides in Borkel en Schaft.

On 24 June 1984 he applied for a reference quantity under the 1984

Ordinance, which was rejected by the Director on 5 November 1984.

45. The applicant's objection to the Minister against the Director's

decision was rejected on 13 June 1985. The applicant's subsequent

appeal to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal was rejected on 3 May 1990.

(18) Application No. 17883/91 - Th.B.

46. The applicant was born in 1923 and resides in Meerkerk. As his

land was spread over an area in different plots, he sold some of his

plots and bought land adjacent to his own within the framework of a

land consolidation plan. These transactions were executed between April

and June 1984.

47. After the applicant had reported the transactions, the Director,

pursuant to the 1984 Ordinance, determined the applicant's reference

quantity on the basis of the new situation by decision of

26 August 1985. The new determination resulted in a lower reference

quantity.

48. The applicant's objection to the Minister was rejected on

18 February 1987. The applicant's subsequent appeal to the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal was rejected on 20 June 1990.

(19) Application No. 18615/91 - P.H.

49. The applicant was born in 1940 and resides in Wellerlooi. On

28 June 1984 he applied for a reference quantity under the 1984

Ordinance. On 10 April 1985 the applicant was allotted a reference

quantity.

50. On 8 August 1986 the applicant's son, who intended to take over

the farm, applied for a reference quantity under the Super Levy

Ordinance for Farm Succession Undermanning Situations.

51. In the course of the examination of the son's request, the

documents submitted by the applicant in 1984 in support of his

application of 28 June 1984 were re-examined. It then appeared that the

applicant had not complied with certain investment requirements.

52. Consequently, on 23 January 1989, the Minister withdrew the

applicant's reference quantity granted on 10 April 1985 with

retroactive effect. In the same decision the Minister granted the

applicant's son a reference quantity under the Super Levy Ordinance for

Farm Succession Undermanning Situations provided the take-over of the

farm would occur before 1 April 1989.

53. The applicant requested the Minister to reconsider his decision,

but this request was rejected on 5 July 1989. On 20 February 1989 the

applicant filed an appeal against the Minister's decision of

23 January 1989 with the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

54. On 6 February 1990 the Minister partially revised his decision

of 23 January 1989, removing its retroactive effect. The withdrawal of

the reference quantity thus came into effect on 1 February 1989.

55. On 23 February 1990 the applicant filed an objection with the

Minister and appealed to the Industrial Appeals Board against the

latter aspect of the decision. This appeal was joined to the procedure

already pending before the Industrial Appeals Tribunal. The Industrial

Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeals on 22 January 1991.

(20) Application No. 19590/92 - C.D.

56. The applicant was born in 1940, resides in Oirschot, and owned

a dairy farm until early 1987, in respect of which he had been allotted

a reference quantity. In April and May 1987 the applicant sold his land

in several separate plots, together with corresponding parts of his

reference quantity, to a company with limited liability, Quotumbureau,

which in turn sold the plots and the corresponding reference quantities

to other parties.

57. Quotumbureau and the new owners notified each transaction

involving a transfer of reference quantity to the Director of

Agriculture, Nature and Outdoor Recreation (Directeur Landbouw, Natuur

en Openluchtrecreatie, hereinafter referred to as "Director ANOR"), who

reacted to each notification by issuing a decision confirming the

registration of the transfer of the reference quantity as of

1 April 1987, whilst the applicant's quota was reduced each time to a

corresponding extent.

58. According to the last decision of the Director ANOR, dated 11

February 1988, the reference quantity of the applicant was reduced to

zero. No objections against any of the Director's decisions were filed

within the prescribed 30 days.

59. However, by letter of 4 September 1989, the applicant objected

before the Director ANOR that all transfers of the reference quantity

had been registered as of 1 April 1987. He submitted his contract with

Quotumbureau, pursuant to which he was entitled to use the plots and

produce milk up to 15 May 1987. However, as a consequence of the quota

transfer being fixed for 1 April 1987, he had to pay a levy for all

milk produced by him between 1 April and 15 May 1987. The applicant

suggested that apparently a mistake had been made by Quotumbureau and

requested the Director ANOR to revise his decisions and allot him a

reference quantity for the period between 1 April and 15 May 1987.

60. This request was rejected by the Minister on 10 July 1990. The

applicant's subsequent appeal to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal was

rejected on 10 July 1991.

(21) Application 19591/92 - J.B.

61. The applicant was born in 1936 and resides in Oirschot. Until

early 1987 the applicant owned a dairy farm in respect of which a

reference quantity had been allotted to him. In April 1987 the

applicant sold his land in separate plots, together with corresponding

parts of his reference quantity, to a company with limited liability,

Quotumbureau, which in turn sold the plots and the corresponding

reference quantities to other parties.

62. Quotumbureau and the new owners notified all transactions to the

Director ANOR, requesting the latter to register each transaction and

transfer of the corresponding reference quantity to the new owner, as

from the beginning of the levy-year (heffingsjaar) 1987/1988.

63. On 12 November 1987 the Director ANOR informed the buyers of two

plots that he would not register the transfer they had requested. The

buyers filed an objection against this decision with the Minister.

64. The Director ANOR informed the applicant on 28 January 1988 that,

as a consequence of the transactions, his reference quantity was

reduced to zero as of 1 April 1987. The applicant did not file any

objection against this decision.

65. By decision of 27 December 1989, directed to the two buyers, the

applicant and another buyer, the Minister declared the first two

buyers' respective appeals well-founded, annulled the initial refusal

of the Director and ordered the registration of the transfer of the

reference quantity as from 1 April 1987.

66. On 25 January 1990 the applicant filed an appeal with the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal against the Minister's decision in respect

of the date of the transfer of the reference quantity. He submitted his

contract with the Quotumbureau B.V., according to which he was entitled

to use the plots and produce milk up to 15 May 1987. However, as a

consequence of the reference quantity transfer being fixed for

1 April 1987, he had to pay a levy for all milk produced by him between

1 April and 15 May 1987. The applicant suggested that apparently a

mistake had been made by the Quotumbureau. The applicant requested the

Tribunal partially to quash the Minister's decision of 27 December 1989

and order that, for the levy-year 1987/1988, a part of the reference

quantity remain registered in the applicant's name.

67. The Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal

on 10 July 1991.

(22) Application No. 20311/92 - L.A.G. HUIJBEN

68. The applicant was born in 1963 and resides in Odiliapeel. Since

1 January 1984 the applicant has exploited a dairy farm in partnership

with his father. On 18 July 1986 the applicant applied for a reference

quantity under the Super Levy Ordinance for Farm Succession

Undermanning Situations.

69. On 17 July 1987 the Director ANOR allotted to the applicant a

reference quantity on condition that the applicant would take over the

farm before 1 April 1989.

70. On 31 March 1989 the applicant informed the Director ANOR that

the take-over had taken place. By letter of 3 October 1989 the Director

requested additional information as regards the take-over. The

applicant replied by letter of 12 October 1989.

71. By decision of 9 November 1989 the Director withdrew the

reference quantity allotted to the applicant because, from the

information and documents submitted, it appeared that the take-over had

not taken place in accordance with the provisions of the Super Levy

Ordinance for Farm Succession Undermanning Situations.

72. On 30 November 1989 the applicant filed an objection with the

Minister, who rejected it on 16 July 1990. The applicant's subsequent

appeal with the Industrial Appeals Tribunal was rejected on

30 October 1991.

(23) Application No. 22532/93 - E.P. and C.P.

73. The applicants were born in 1965 and 1967 respectively and reside

in Weerselo. Since 1986, the applicants have run the dairy farm of

their father, to whom a reference quantity had been allocated under the

1984 Ordinance. As the applicants intended to take over their father's

farm, they requested a reference quantity on 25 July 1986 under the

Super Levy Ordinance for Farm Succession Undermanning Situations. In

view of this take-over, the applicants established a partnership in

1988.

74. On 9 June 1987 the Director ANOR allotted to the applicants a

reference quantity under the Super Levy Ordinance for Farm Succession

Undermanning Situations on condition that the take-over would take

place before 1 April 1989.

75. On 10 October 1989 the Director ANOR withdrew the quota allotted

on 9 June 1987, as the applicants had failed to submit sufficient

evidence that they had in fact taken over their father's farm before

1 April 1989. On 7 November 1989 the applicants filed an objection with

the Minister, who rejected it on 23 October 1991.

76. The applicants' subsequent appeal to the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal was rejected on 14 April 1993.

c. Complaints

77. All applicants complained that they did not have access to an

independent tribunal for the determination of their civil rights, as

the Industrial Appeals Tribunal could not be regarded as an independent

tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention,

given the executive authority's powers under Section 74 of the

Industrial Appeals Act.

78. Some of the applicants further complained under Article 6 para. 1

of the Convention that their civil rights had not been determined

within a reasonable time and one applicant also complained of the lack

of an appeal against a judgment of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

79. Following the decision on the admissibility of the applications,

the Commission (Second Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the

parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance

with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties

to submit any proposals they wished to make.

80. In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary,

acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to

explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.

81. By letter the parties indicated their willingness, in principle,

to reach a friendly settlement.

82. The respondent Government made proposals by letter of

26 October 1995, to which the applicants' representatives reacted by

letters of 27 November 1995, 30 November 1995, 1 December 1995 and 4

December 1995 respectively.

83. On 5 December 1995 the Commission considered the parties'

proposals for a friendly settlement and decided to invite the parties

to a meeting with a Delegate of the Commission in order to discuss the

possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.

84. On 9 January 1996 in Leiden, the Netherlands, a meeting took

place between the parties and the Delegate of the Commission, Mr H.G.

Schermers, assisted by Ms M.-T. Schoepfer, Secretary to the Second

Chamber, and Mr N.F. Mol of the Commission's Secretariat.

85. At this meeting the Government were represented by their Agent,

Mr K. de Vey Mestdagh, of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

Mrs M.J.T.M. Vijghen of the Netherlands Ministry of Justice and Mr M.

Nagel of the Netherlands Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management and

Fisheries. The applicants were represented by Mr G.W.A. Bernards,

Mr Th.J.H.M. Linssen, Mr A.A.M. van Beek, Mr E.G.J. Hendriksen,

Mr A.J. Boonstra and Mr J.P.E. Baakman. A number of applicants were

present.

86. In the course of the meeting on 9 January 1995, the parties

agreed to settle the respective cases on the following terms:

"a. The Government of the Netherlands agree to pay to the

applicant(s), on an ex gratia basis, a total amount of

... Dutch guilders, which amount includes the legal

costs incurred by the applicant(s) in the proceedings

at issue.

b. The applicant(s) declare(s) the above application to

be settled.

c. The parties agree that the sole purpose of this

settlement is to terminate the proceedings before the

European Commission of Human Rights and does not in

any way affect any domestic proceedings which might be

or become pending before the Dutch courts in relation

to the subject matter ("het geschil ten gronde") of

this application.

d. In this connection, the Government guarantee not to

invoke, in a civil procedure, the possible

incompetence ("absolute onbevoegdheid") of the Dutch

civil judge."

87. The respective amounts agreed upon under point a. are as follows:

Application No. 14561/89:17.833,50 Dutch guilders

Application No. 14657/89:15.863,50 Dutch guilders

Application No. 15105/89:13.833,50 Dutch guilders

Application No. 15343/89:13.833,50 Dutch guilders

Application No. 15712/89:13.863,50 Dutch guilders

Application No. 15908/89:13.833,50 Dutch guilders

Application No. 15988/90:13.863,50 Dutch guilders

Application No. 16118/90:13.863,50 Dutch guilders

Application No. 16513/90:11.863,50 Dutch guilders

Application No. 16583/90:11.863,50 Dutch guilders

Application No. 16843/90:11.863,50 Dutch guilders

Application No. 16896/90:11.833,50 Dutch guilders

Application No. 16897/90:11.833,50 Dutch guilders

Application No. 17001/90:13.000,00 Dutch guilders

Application No. 17241/90:11.863,50 Dutch guilders

Application No. 17252/90:13.000,00 Dutch guilders

Application No. 17675/91:11.863,50 Dutch guilders

Application No. 17883/91:11.833,50 Dutch guilders

Application No. 18615/91: 9.863,50 Dutch guilders

Application No. 19590/92: 7.833,50 Dutch guilders

Application No. 19591/92: 7.833,50 Dutch guilders

Application No. 20311/92: 7.863,50 Dutch guilders

Application No. 22532/93: 7.000,00 Dutch guilders

88. At its session on 23 January 1996, the Commission noted that the

parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement.

It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the

Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured

on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.

89. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(M.-T. SCHOEPFER) (H. DANELIUS)APPENDIX

1. Application No. 14561/89 2. Application No. 14657/89

introduced on 23 January 1987 introduced on 27 November 1988

by J.S. by P.B. and A.B