Data source
Date of text
27 Nov 1991
Country
Seat of court
Strasbourg
Original language

English

Type of text
International court
Reference number
12565/86
Court name
European Court of Human Rights
Justice(s)
MORENILLA, J.M.
RYSSDAL, R.
VILHJÁLMSSON, T.
PETTITI, L.-E,
MACDONALD, R.
SPIELMANN, A.
DE MEYER, J.
MARTENS, S.K.
FOIGHEL, I.
Sources
InforMEA

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.