Search
document

Document text Analytics

C.B. ; AND O.H. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 11452/85 • ECHR ID: 001-567

Document date: October 10, 1986

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

C.B. ; AND O.H. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 11452/85 • ECHR ID: 001-567

Document date: October 10, 1986

Cited paragraphs only

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

10 October 1986, the following members being present:

MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President

J. A. FROWEIN

F. ERMACORA

M. A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

G. TENEKIDES

S. TRECHSEL

B. KIERNAN

A. WEITZEL

J. C. SOYER

H. G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

J. CAMPINOS

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. F. MARTINEZ

Mr. H. C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 20 December 1984 by C.B. B.V.

and O.H. B.V. against the Netherlands and registered on 18 March 1985 under

File No. 11452/85;

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 of the case as they have been submitted by the applicants

may be summarised as follows:

The first applicant is a limited holding company under Dutch law with

registered office at Rotterdam.

The second applicant is also a limited holding company under Dutch law

with registered office at Amsterdam.

In the proceedings before the Commission, the applicants are

represented by Mr. M. H. J. Toxopeus, a lawyer practising at

Zoetermeer.

In October 1980 the applicants, who owned a number of flats at

Dordrecht which they apparently intended to sell, initiated civil

proceedings against the municipality of Dordrecht before the Regional

Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Dordrecht. The applicants

contended that the municipality had committed a tort when issuing a

decree containing rules on the application of Section 1 of the Housing

Act 1947 (Verordening houdende regelen voor de toepassing van artikel

1 van de Woonruimtewet 1947) on 22 April 1980. This decree provided,

inter alia, that residence permits for housing, which was last rented

out for Dfl. 400.- per month or less, were only to be granted to

prospective tenants or to buyers who intended to live there

themselves, if these could be considered as urgently seeking housing

(urgent woningzoekende). The applicants requested the court, inter

alia, to order the municipality to withdraw the decree, to publish

this withdrawal and to pay them Dfl. 3,608,150.- in damages.

On 28 January 1981, the court ordered that the contested provisions of

the decree no longer be applied and that this be published, and

rejected the applicants' other claims.

Thereupon, the applicants, and subsequently the municipality of

Dordrecht, appealed to the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) of The Hague.

On 11 May 1983, the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the

Regional Court and rejected all claims by the applicants. The Court

considered, inter alia, that the contested decree was in conformity

with Section 4 of the Housing Decree 1974, (Woonruimtebeschikking

1947), based on the Housing Act 1947, which provides that no

conditions may be attached to the granting of residence permits other

than those which are conducive to a rational distribution of housing.

The litigious decree was also found to be in conformity with the

preamble of the Housing Act which referred to the necessity of

establishing regulations for such a distribution in view of the

existing housing shortage.

The applicants thereupon appealed to the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad),

but their appeal was rejected on 29 June 1984. According to the

Supreme Court, the decision of the Court of Appeal had been taken in

accordance with the law.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants claim that their property rights have been infringed

upon by the decree containing rules on the application of Section 1 of

the Housing Act 1947, issued by the municipality of Dordrecht. The

applicants contend that they must be allowed to sell or rent out their

property in that municipality in the most profitable way. They also

claim that there is no housing shortage in Dordrecht.

The applicants have invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the

Convention.

THE LAW

The applicants have complained that the Dutch authorities, by

establishing certain regulations concerning the sale or rent of

housing, have interfered with their rights under Article 1 of Protocol

No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention which provides:

"1. Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful

enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his

possessions except in the public interest and subject to the

conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of

international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the

right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control

the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to

secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."

The facts as presented by the applicants make it clear that the

question before the Commission is whether the control of the use of

the applicants' property was justified.

The Commission notes that the impugned regulations generally aimed at

a rational distribution of housing, and in particular were designed to

provide cheap housing for people who were considered to be urgently

seeking housing. Moreover, these regulations did not interfere with

existing contracts but only laid down conditions for the future

letting or sale of housing as it became available.

Furthermore, the Commission considers that the applicants have failed

to substantiate their allegation that there was no housing shortage in

Dordrecht at the relevant time.

Moreover, the Commission has had regard to the balance struck by the

Dutch authorities between the applicants' interests and the legitimate

social policy aim of providing adequate cheap housing, and is

satisfied that there was a reasonable degree of proportionality

between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (cf. e.g.

No. 8003/77, Dec. 3.10.79, D.R. 17, p. 80 ff).

Under these circumstances, the Commission finds that the interference

with the applicants' peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was

justified under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(P1-1) to the Convention as necessary to control the use of property

in accordance with the general interest.

Consequently, the application must be rejected as 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)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant