Original language

English

Country
European Union
Date of text
Status
Unknown
Type of court
International court
Sources
Court name
European Court of Human Rights
Seat of court
Strasbourg
Reference number
12565/86
Tagging
Administrative, Property, Torts, Licences, Remedies, Human Rights, Land Use, Civil, Damages, Inspections
Free tags
Legal questions
Environment gen.
Justice(s)
MORENILLA, J.M.
RYSSDAL, R.
VILHJÁLMSSON, T.
PETTITI, L.-E,
MACDONALD, R.
SPIELMANN, A.
DE MEYER, J.
MARTENS, S.K.
FOIGHEL, I.
Abstract
This case concerns the question whether the applicant could challenge the lawfulness before a court of an order designating his land as a protected natural site.
Article 6-1 was held applicable because there existed a serious dispute concerning the restrictions on the applicant's use of his property. It was the view of many authorities on Netherlands law that the civil courts would be able to examine the lawfulness of any administrative decision coming within the scope of Article 6 against which an appeal lay to the Crown. The Supreme Court upheld this view in a decision of 12 December 1986 and confirmed the principle in several judgements. Accordingly under well-established principles of Netherlands law, which existed at the time of the Royal Decree in the present case, the applicant could have submitted his dispute to the civil courts for examination. There was thus no breach of Article 6-1. In the light of the Court's case law, the property right in question was "civil" in nature in the meaning of Article 6-1. The Court ruled, however, that there was no breach of Article 6-1.