هيثم الفقى
07-16-2009, 01:00 PM
X. v. THE NETHERLANDS - 2290/64 [1967] ECHR 7 (06 February 1967)
THE FACTSWhereas the facts of the case as presented by the Applicant may besummarised as follows:The Applicant is a Netherlands citizen, born in 1917 and at presentliving at Oldebrock.1. His complaints concern the activities which are being exercisedin the field of agriculture by an organisation called the AgriculturalCorporation (landbouwschap). He states that this organisation has beengiven considerable power as regards agricultural policy and constitutesan oppression for the farmers.2. The legal basis of the system criticised by the Applicant is theAct 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 functionsin respect of the organisation of the economic life in the Netherlandsand, in addition, the Act provides that special corporations can beset up for a number of enterprises which either perform similarfunctions or perform different functions in respect of the sameproducts. Such corporations have the task of serving the commoninterests of the enterprises for which they have been set up and theyhave been given competence to exercise public authority in variousrespects and are frequently characterised as "economic organisationsunder public law" (publiekrechtelijke bedrijfsorganisaties).3. In the field of agriculture, the Agricultural Corporation againstwhich the Applicant directs his complaints was set up on 16th February,1954 according to the provisions of the Act on the EconomicOrganisation.In the Applicant's opinion, the Agricultural Corporation is not ademocratic body since the farmers in general have had little or noinfluence on its composition.In this respect, he points out that, according to the Act on theEconomic Organisation, a corporation of this kind is to be set upby Royal Decree on the advice of the Social-Economic Council providedthat this advice is consistent with the opinion stated byrepresentatives of the employers and the employees concerned. However,the members of the Social-Economic Council are appointed partly by theGovernment and partly by organisations which the Government designates,and the Applicant concludes that in reality the Council is, in respectof economic policy, merely an organ of the Government.Moreover, the Council decides itself which organisations it shouldhear before advising the Government to set up a corporation. Beforegiving its advice regarding the constitution of the AgriculturalCorporation, the Council consulted the Foundation for Agriculture(Stichting voor de Landbouw) which, in the Applicant's opinion, is nota body representative of the farmers.The Applicant concludes that the Agricultural Corporation was setup without any previous consultation of the farmers themselves andthat therefore it cannot be considered to function on a democraticbasis.4. As to the organisation of the Agricultural Corporation, theApplicant states that the chairman is appointed by the Government andthat the 24 members of the board are nominated by six organisationswhich have been approved by the Government and the Social-EconomicCouncil and which are in fact closely connected with the Government.However, those farmers who are not organised or are members of otherorganisations than those approved by the Government, have no influenceon the appointment of the board.Nevertheless, the Agricultural Corporation exercises far-reachingpublic functions in regard to the farmers. It levies taxes on themand spends tax money without any control by the farmers. Its boardmay meet in camera and is responsible to no one and is controlledby no one.Those who are members of one of the organisations approved by theGovernment are allowed to deduct the amount of their contributionsto their organisation from the tax which they have to pay to theAgricultural Corporation and the result is that the other farmers payto that Corporation higher taxes than are paid by those farmers who areorganised 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, inparticular, to an ordinance according to which the farmers are obligedto make annual declarations regarding all important data as to theirfarms. 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 mightbe useful to the Corporation.The Applicant states that he and many other farmers find the systemdescribed above contrary to their conscience and convictions and thattherefore they refuse to submit annual declarations regarding theirfarms. The result is that these farmers are sentenced every year,by a special judge competent in regard to economic offences, to afine or, as a subsidiary penalty, to imprisonment. As many of thesefarmers do not wish to pay their fines voluntarily, they are actuallyput into prison. Such sentences are pronounced in accordance withthe Act on Economic Offenses (Wet op de Economische Delicten). Underits provisions, a number of acts can be punished although, in theApplicant's opinion, they are not considered by public opinion tobe punishable. Moreover, the rights of the accused under this Acthave been reduced; the Applicant mentions, in particular, that theright to lodge an appeal in cassation is more restricted than in regardto other offences.Against the decisions of the Agricultural Corporation, anadministrative appeal is available to a special Appeals Board (Collegevan Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven), composed of three professionaljudges and two special judges nominated by the Corporation which isconcerned in each particular case. Moreover, the Government hasreserved the right to set aside the decisions of the Appeals Board.Consequently, the Appeals Board cannot, in the Applicant's opinion, beconsidered an impartial and independent body.The Applicant goes on to describe various measures by the AgriculturalCorporation by which farmers have been deprived of money or otherproperty. In particular, he states that farmers have been forcedto leave their farms for non-payment of small sums of money and hementions, as an example, that in March 1963 families of three farmerswere forced by the Agricultural Corporation to leave their farms;according to the Applicant this action was performed with theassistance of armed soldiers who used tear-gas.The Applicant submits that, in respect of his refusal to submit annualdeclarations, he was last convicted on ... 1963 by the Police Courtat 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 LAWWhereas the Commission observes that, in the examination of theApplicant's various allegations, due regard must be had to the factthat the Agricultural Corporation and the Social-Economic Council arepart of an elaborate system for organising effectively the economiclife of the country;Whereas there is nothing to show that this system is contrary tothe Convention; whereas, in particular, there is not, in the presentcase, 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 orArticle 1 of the Protocol (P1-1) as specially complained of by theApplicant;Whereas it follows that the present Application is manifestlyill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)(Art. 27-2), of the Convention.Now therefore the Commission declares this Application inadmissible.
THE FACTSWhereas the facts of the case as presented by the Applicant may besummarised as follows:The Applicant is a Netherlands citizen, born in 1917 and at presentliving at Oldebrock.1. His complaints concern the activities which are being exercisedin the field of agriculture by an organisation called the AgriculturalCorporation (landbouwschap). He states that this organisation has beengiven considerable power as regards agricultural policy and constitutesan oppression for the farmers.2. The legal basis of the system criticised by the Applicant is theAct 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 functionsin respect of the organisation of the economic life in the Netherlandsand, in addition, the Act provides that special corporations can beset up for a number of enterprises which either perform similarfunctions or perform different functions in respect of the sameproducts. Such corporations have the task of serving the commoninterests of the enterprises for which they have been set up and theyhave been given competence to exercise public authority in variousrespects and are frequently characterised as "economic organisationsunder public law" (publiekrechtelijke bedrijfsorganisaties).3. In the field of agriculture, the Agricultural Corporation againstwhich the Applicant directs his complaints was set up on 16th February,1954 according to the provisions of the Act on the EconomicOrganisation.In the Applicant's opinion, the Agricultural Corporation is not ademocratic body since the farmers in general have had little or noinfluence on its composition.In this respect, he points out that, according to the Act on theEconomic Organisation, a corporation of this kind is to be set upby Royal Decree on the advice of the Social-Economic Council providedthat this advice is consistent with the opinion stated byrepresentatives of the employers and the employees concerned. However,the members of the Social-Economic Council are appointed partly by theGovernment and partly by organisations which the Government designates,and the Applicant concludes that in reality the Council is, in respectof economic policy, merely an organ of the Government.Moreover, the Council decides itself which organisations it shouldhear before advising the Government to set up a corporation. Beforegiving its advice regarding the constitution of the AgriculturalCorporation, the Council consulted the Foundation for Agriculture(Stichting voor de Landbouw) which, in the Applicant's opinion, is nota body representative of the farmers.The Applicant concludes that the Agricultural Corporation was setup without any previous consultation of the farmers themselves andthat therefore it cannot be considered to function on a democraticbasis.4. As to the organisation of the Agricultural Corporation, theApplicant states that the chairman is appointed by the Government andthat the 24 members of the board are nominated by six organisationswhich have been approved by the Government and the Social-EconomicCouncil and which are in fact closely connected with the Government.However, those farmers who are not organised or are members of otherorganisations than those approved by the Government, have no influenceon the appointment of the board.Nevertheless, the Agricultural Corporation exercises far-reachingpublic functions in regard to the farmers. It levies taxes on themand spends tax money without any control by the farmers. Its boardmay meet in camera and is responsible to no one and is controlledby no one.Those who are members of one of the organisations approved by theGovernment are allowed to deduct the amount of their contributionsto their organisation from the tax which they have to pay to theAgricultural Corporation and the result is that the other farmers payto that Corporation higher taxes than are paid by those farmers who areorganised 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, inparticular, to an ordinance according to which the farmers are obligedto make annual declarations regarding all important data as to theirfarms. 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 mightbe useful to the Corporation.The Applicant states that he and many other farmers find the systemdescribed above contrary to their conscience and convictions and thattherefore they refuse to submit annual declarations regarding theirfarms. The result is that these farmers are sentenced every year,by a special judge competent in regard to economic offences, to afine or, as a subsidiary penalty, to imprisonment. As many of thesefarmers do not wish to pay their fines voluntarily, they are actuallyput into prison. Such sentences are pronounced in accordance withthe Act on Economic Offenses (Wet op de Economische Delicten). Underits provisions, a number of acts can be punished although, in theApplicant's opinion, they are not considered by public opinion tobe punishable. Moreover, the rights of the accused under this Acthave been reduced; the Applicant mentions, in particular, that theright to lodge an appeal in cassation is more restricted than in regardto other offences.Against the decisions of the Agricultural Corporation, anadministrative appeal is available to a special Appeals Board (Collegevan Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven), composed of three professionaljudges and two special judges nominated by the Corporation which isconcerned in each particular case. Moreover, the Government hasreserved the right to set aside the decisions of the Appeals Board.Consequently, the Appeals Board cannot, in the Applicant's opinion, beconsidered an impartial and independent body.The Applicant goes on to describe various measures by the AgriculturalCorporation by which farmers have been deprived of money or otherproperty. In particular, he states that farmers have been forcedto leave their farms for non-payment of small sums of money and hementions, as an example, that in March 1963 families of three farmerswere forced by the Agricultural Corporation to leave their farms;according to the Applicant this action was performed with theassistance of armed soldiers who used tear-gas.The Applicant submits that, in respect of his refusal to submit annualdeclarations, he was last convicted on ... 1963 by the Police Courtat 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 LAWWhereas the Commission observes that, in the examination of theApplicant's various allegations, due regard must be had to the factthat the Agricultural Corporation and the Social-Economic Council arepart of an elaborate system for organising effectively the economiclife of the country;Whereas there is nothing to show that this system is contrary tothe Convention; whereas, in particular, there is not, in the presentcase, 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 orArticle 1 of the Protocol (P1-1) as specially complained of by theApplicant;Whereas it follows that the present Application is manifestlyill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2)(Art. 27-2), of the Convention.Now therefore the Commission declares this Application inadmissible.