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

CASE OF BENTHEM v. THE NETHERLANDSJOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES BINDSCHEDLER-ROBERT, GÖLCÜKLÜ, MATSCHER, PINHEIRO FARINHA, SIR VINCENT EVANS AND DUBBINK

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: October 23, 1985

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

CASE OF BENTHEM v. THE NETHERLANDSJOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES BINDSCHEDLER-ROBERT, GÖLCÜKLÜ, MATSCHER, PINHEIRO FARINHA, SIR VINCENT EVANS AND DUBBINK

Doc ref:ECHR ID:

Document date: October 23, 1985

Cited paragraphs only

JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES BINDSCHEDLER-ROBERT, GÖLCÜKLÜ, MATSCHER, PINHEIRO FARINHA, SIR VINCENT EVANS AND DUBBINK

(Translation)

As regards the delimitation of the Convention ’ s field of application, we agree with the approach adopted by the majority of the Court. The essence of this approach is that, for Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) to be applicable, "civil rights and obligations" (an expression which, according to the Court ’ s case-law, refers to rights and obligations of a private nature) must be the object - or one of the objects - of the contestation (dispute) and the result of the proceedings must be directly decisive for such a right; in this respect, a tenuous connection or remote consequences do not suffice.

However, that was not the situation in the present case : the contestation (dispute) in question did not have as its object a civil right or obligation at all; the sole object of the proceedings was to determine whether or not the grant to Mr. Benthem of a licence to exploit an LPG installation was compatible with the interests of the community, interests whose protection is a typical function of administrative law; the result of those proceedings was no more than indirectly decisive for his civil rights and had only remote consequences as regards such rights. Accordingly, Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) is not applicable in the present case.

In view of the foregoing, we consider that it is not necessary for us to comment on other arguments which served as a further basis for the majority ’ s conclusion that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of the Convention is applicable (for example, the alleged proprietary character of the right concerned, or Mr. Benthem ’ s position as a businessman).

[*]  Note by the Registrar: The case is numbered 1/1984/73/111.  The second figure indicates the year in which the case was referred to the Court, and the first figure its place on the list of cases referred in that year; the last two figures indicate, respectively, the case's order on the list of cases and of originating applications (to the Commission) referred to the Court since its creation.

© 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