Lexploria - Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Lexploria beta Legal research enhanced by smart algorithms
Menu
Browsing history:

X. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 2290/64 • ECHR ID: 001-2983

Document date: February 6, 1967

  • Inbound citations: 0
  • Cited paragraphs: 0
  • Outbound citations: 0

X. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 2290/64 • ECHR ID: 001-2983

Document date: February 6, 1967

Cited paragraphs only



THE FACTS

Whereas the facts of the case as presented by the Applicant may be

summarised as follows:

The Applicant is a Netherlands citizen, born in 1917 and at present

living at Oldebrock.

1. His complaints concern the activities which are being exercised

in the field of agriculture by an organisation called the Agricultural

Corporation (landbouwschap). He states that this organisation has been

given considerable power as regards agricultural policy and constitutes

an oppression for the farmers.

2. The legal basis of the system criticised by the Applicant is the

Act on the Economic Organisation (Wet op de Bedrijfsorganisatie).

According to this Act, a body called the Social-Economic Council

(Sociaal-Economische Raad) has been entrusted with certain functions

in respect of the organisation of the economic life in the Netherlands

and, in addition, the Act provides that special corporations can be

set up for a number of enterprises which either perform similar

functions or perform different functions in respect of the same

products. Such corporations have the task of serving the common

interests of the enterprises for which they have been set up and they

have been given competence to exercise public authority in various

respects and are frequently characterised as "economic organisations

under public law" (publiekrechtelijke bedrijfsorganisaties).

3. In the field of agriculture, the Agricultural Corporation against

which the Applicant directs his complaints was set up on 16th February,

1954 according to the provisions of the Act on the Economic

Organisation.

In the Applicant's opinion, the Agricultural Corporation is not a

democratic body since the farmers in general have had little or no

influence on its composition.

In this respect, he points out that, according to the Act on the

Economic Organisation, a corporation of this kind is to be set up

by Royal Decree on the advice of the Social-Economic Council provided

that this advice is consistent with the opinion stated by

representatives of the employers and the employees concerned. However,

the members of the Social-Economic Council are appointed partly by the

Government and partly by organisations which the Government designates,

and the Applicant concludes that in reality the Council is, in respect

of economic policy, merely an organ of the Government.

Moreover, the Council decides itself which organisations it should

hear before advising the Government to set up a corporation. Before

giving its advice regarding the constitution of the Agricultural

Corporation, the Council consulted the Foundation for Agriculture

(Stichting voor de Landbouw) which, in the Applicant's opinion, is not

a body representative of the farmers.

The Applicant concludes that the Agricultural Corporation was set

up without any previous consultation of the farmers themselves and

that therefore it cannot be considered to function on a democratic

basis.

4. As to the organisation of the Agricultural Corporation, the

Applicant states that the chairman is appointed by the Government and

that the 24 members of the board are nominated by six organisations

which have been approved by the Government and the Social-Economic

Council and which are in fact closely connected with the Government.

However, those farmers who are not organised or are members of other

organisations than those approved by the Government, have no influence

on the appointment of the board.

Nevertheless, the Agricultural Corporation exercises far-reaching

public functions in regard to the farmers. It levies taxes on them

and spends tax money without any control by the farmers. Its board

may meet in camera and is responsible to no one and is controlled

by no one.

Those who are members of one of the organisations approved by the

Government are allowed to deduct the amount of their contributions

to their organisation from the tax which they have to pay to the

Agricultural Corporation and the result is that the other farmers pay

to that Corporation higher taxes than are paid by those farmers who are

organised according to the Government's wishes.

The Corporation has a certain legislative power over the farmers.

It is competent to issue ordinances and the Applicant refers, in

particular, to an ordinance according to which the farmers are obliged

to make annual declarations regarding all important data as to their

farms.  The Applicant states that in fact the Corporation wishes to

"liquidate" certain farmers and turn their farms into collectives,

and he suggests that for this purpose the annual declarations might

be useful to the Corporation.

The Applicant states that he and many other farmers find the system

described above contrary to their conscience and convictions and that

therefore they refuse to submit annual declarations regarding their

farms. The result is that these farmers are sentenced every year,

by a special judge competent in regard to economic offences, to a

fine or, as a subsidiary penalty, to imprisonment. As many of these

farmers do not wish to pay their fines voluntarily, they are actually

put into prison. Such sentences are pronounced in accordance with

the Act on Economic Offenses (Wet op de Economische Delicten). Under

its provisions, a number of acts can be punished although, in the

Applicant's opinion, they are not considered by public opinion to

be punishable. Moreover, the rights of the accused under this Act

have been reduced; the Applicant mentions, in particular, that the

right to lodge an appeal in cassation is more restricted than in regard

to other offences.

Against the decisions of the Agricultural Corporation, an

administrative appeal is available to a special Appeals Board (College

van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven), composed of three professional

judges and two special judges nominated by the Corporation which is

concerned in each particular case. Moreover, the Government has

reserved the right to set aside the decisions of the Appeals Board.

Consequently, the Appeals Board cannot, in the Applicant's opinion, be

considered an impartial and independent body.

The Applicant goes on to describe various measures by the Agricultural

Corporation by which farmers have been deprived of money or other

property. In particular, he states that farmers have been forced

to leave their farms for non-payment of small sums of money and he

mentions, as an example, that in March 1963 families of three farmers

were forced by the Agricultural Corporation to leave their farms;

according to the Applicant this action was performed with the

assistance of armed soldiers who used tear-gas.

The Applicant submits that, in respect of his refusal to submit annual

declarations, he was last convicted on ... 1963 by the Police Court

at Zwolle and sentenced to a fine or, subsidiarily, to detention.

His appeal in cassation was rejected on ... 1963 by the Supreme Court.

5. He alleges violations of

- Article 3 of the Convention, in that, in the framework of the system

  described above, acts are punished which are not "felt" as punishable

  and that families are forced to leave their land by reason of small

  debts;

- Article 4 of the Convention, in that the system complained of implies

  that an entire class of people is mastered by a small group which

  is favoured by the Government and whose exercise of power is subject

  to no control;

- Article 5 of the Convention, in that this system implies the

  annihilation of the personal freedom of those who fall under the

  power of the Agricultural Corporation;

- Article 6 of the Convention, in that the penal procedure referred

  to above deviates from what is generally prescribed in regard to such

  procedure, and this to the detriment of the accused;

- Article 8 of the Convention, in that the private life of the farmers

  is not respected;

- Article 11 of the Convention, in that the farmers are placed under

  the power of a corporation dominated by a number of associations

  which support one another and are approved by the Government, in

  particular as these associations enjoy special benefits by reason of

  the system of deduction of contributions as described above;

- Article 13 of the Convention, in that there has proved to be no way

  of redress, although the Applicant has appealed to the Courts;

- Article 14 of the Convention, in that the Applicant, as a result of

  the fact that he does not wish to be a member of any of the

  associations approved by the Government, is not granted the rights

  and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention;

- Article 1 of the Protocol, in that the system of deduction of

  contributions violates the right of property of those who are not

  allowed such deduction.

THE LAW

Whereas the Commission observes that, in the examination of the

Applicant's various allegations, due regard must be had to the fact

that the Agricultural Corporation and the Social-Economic Council are

part of an elaborate system for organising effectively the economic

life of the country;

Whereas there is nothing to show that this system is contrary to

the Convention;  whereas, in particular, there is not, in the present

case, any appearance of a violation of Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11,

13 and 14 (Art. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13, 14) of the Convention or

Article 1 of the Protocol (P1-1) as specially complained of by the

Applicant;

Whereas it follows that the present Application is manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)

(Art. 27-2), of the Convention.

Now therefore the Commission declares this Application inadmissible.

© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2024
Active Products: EUCJ + ECHR Data Package + Citation Analytics • Documents in DB: 398107 • Paragraphs parsed: 43931842 • Citations processed 3409255