هيثم الفقى
07-16-2009, 01:34 PM
X. v. THE NETHERLANDS - 2988/66 [1967] ECHR 31 (31 May 1967)
THE FACTSWhereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised asfollows:The Applicant is a Netherlands citizen, born in 1939. He is a farmerand merchant residing at Barneveld.He states that by reason of his religious beliefs he has objections ofconscience to any form of insurance. According to his religiousconvictions, prosperity and adversity are meted out to human beings byGod and it is not permissible to attempt in advance to prevent orreduce the effects of possible disasters.Consequently, the Applicant does not find it possible to accept anysystems of compulsory insurance.In the present case, he refers to one such system introduced by the Actof 30th May, 1963 on Liability Insurance for Motor Vehicles (Wetaansprakelijkheidsverzekoring motorrijtuigen). According to theprovisions of this Act, every user of a motor vehicle must be insuredagainst third party liability.As in other Netherlands legislation on compulsory insurance schemes,there are in the Act of 30th May, 1963 special provisions regardingexemption for those who object, on grounds of conscience, to any formof insurance. Persons who are granted exemption under these provisionsdo not have to pay an insurance premium but are required to pay anequivalent sum of money as income tax and the Applicant states thatthese tax payments serve, in fact, to cover the same risks as theinsurance system is designed to cover. Consequently, there is not, inthe Applicant's opinion, any real exemption, and he states that theGerman term "Etikettenschwindel" (false labelling) has sometimes beenused to describe this procedure. The Applicant concludes that theprovisions regarding exemption are not acceptable and that, therefore,his objections of conscience also concern the exemption system providedfor by the Act.As the Applicant is a merchant, he urgently needs a car for hisbusiness. On ... 1965, he was convicted by the Magistrate's Court(Kantonrechter) of Harderwijk for driving a motor vehicle without aninsurance and he was sentenced to a fine of 50 guilders or, in default,10 days' detention. The motor vehicle was confiscated with the orderthat the proceeds from the sale of the vehicle should be handed overto the Applicant. Finally, the Applicant was also disqualified fromdriving motor vehicles for a period of six months.On appeal, this judgment was confirmed, on ... 1966, by the RegionalCourt (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Zwolle. The Applicant lodged afurther appeal (beroep in cassatie) with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad),and invoked in particular his objections of conscience to insurancesystems. On ... 1966, this appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court.The Applicant alleges that the Supreme Court's decision violates theConvention, in particular its Article 9, since for him one of thepractices of his religion and religious beliefs is to abstain fromparticipation in the insurance system concerned.THE LAWWhereas the Applicant complains of the system of compulsory motorinsurance introduced by the Netherlands Act of 30th May, 1963;Whereas he objects not only to the primary obligation to participatein the insurance scheme but also to the character of the exemptionsystem provided for in the Act in regard to conscientious objectors;Whereas the Applicant alleges that, as a result of the Act concernedand its application to him, he is the victim of a violation of Article9 (Art. 9) of the Convention;Whereas Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention provides as follows:"(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience andreligion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or beliefand freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public orprivate, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teachingpractice and observance.(2) Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject onlyto such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in ademocratic society in the interests of public safety, for theprotection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection ofthe rights and freedoms of others."Whereas the Commission has examined the Application in relation toArticle 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention and has had regard to its previousdecisions in similar cases (see, in particular, Yearbook V, pages 278and 286, Collection of Decisions, Volume 18, page 40);Whereas in the present case the question first arises as to whether thefacts alleged could be considered to concern "the right to freedom ofthought, conscience and religion" as guaranteed by paragraph (1) ofArticle 9 (Art. 9-1);Whereas, in so far as this provision is involved, the Commission findsit clear that the Netherlands legislation concerned and its applicationin the present case are justified under paragraph (2) of Article 9(Art. 9-2); whereas in this respect the Commission has noted that thepurpose of the compulsory motor insurance scheme is to safeguard therights of third parties who may become victims of motor accidents; andwhereas paragraph (2) of Article 9 (Art. 9-2) expressly permits suchlimitations of the freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs as arenecessary in a democratic society "for the protection of the rights andfreedoms of others";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 presented by the Applicant may be summarised asfollows:The Applicant is a Netherlands citizen, born in 1939. He is a farmerand merchant residing at Barneveld.He states that by reason of his religious beliefs he has objections ofconscience to any form of insurance. According to his religiousconvictions, prosperity and adversity are meted out to human beings byGod and it is not permissible to attempt in advance to prevent orreduce the effects of possible disasters.Consequently, the Applicant does not find it possible to accept anysystems of compulsory insurance.In the present case, he refers to one such system introduced by the Actof 30th May, 1963 on Liability Insurance for Motor Vehicles (Wetaansprakelijkheidsverzekoring motorrijtuigen). According to theprovisions of this Act, every user of a motor vehicle must be insuredagainst third party liability.As in other Netherlands legislation on compulsory insurance schemes,there are in the Act of 30th May, 1963 special provisions regardingexemption for those who object, on grounds of conscience, to any formof insurance. Persons who are granted exemption under these provisionsdo not have to pay an insurance premium but are required to pay anequivalent sum of money as income tax and the Applicant states thatthese tax payments serve, in fact, to cover the same risks as theinsurance system is designed to cover. Consequently, there is not, inthe Applicant's opinion, any real exemption, and he states that theGerman term "Etikettenschwindel" (false labelling) has sometimes beenused to describe this procedure. The Applicant concludes that theprovisions regarding exemption are not acceptable and that, therefore,his objections of conscience also concern the exemption system providedfor by the Act.As the Applicant is a merchant, he urgently needs a car for hisbusiness. On ... 1965, he was convicted by the Magistrate's Court(Kantonrechter) of Harderwijk for driving a motor vehicle without aninsurance and he was sentenced to a fine of 50 guilders or, in default,10 days' detention. The motor vehicle was confiscated with the orderthat the proceeds from the sale of the vehicle should be handed overto the Applicant. Finally, the Applicant was also disqualified fromdriving motor vehicles for a period of six months.On appeal, this judgment was confirmed, on ... 1966, by the RegionalCourt (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Zwolle. The Applicant lodged afurther appeal (beroep in cassatie) with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad),and invoked in particular his objections of conscience to insurancesystems. On ... 1966, this appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court.The Applicant alleges that the Supreme Court's decision violates theConvention, in particular its Article 9, since for him one of thepractices of his religion and religious beliefs is to abstain fromparticipation in the insurance system concerned.THE LAWWhereas the Applicant complains of the system of compulsory motorinsurance introduced by the Netherlands Act of 30th May, 1963;Whereas he objects not only to the primary obligation to participatein the insurance scheme but also to the character of the exemptionsystem provided for in the Act in regard to conscientious objectors;Whereas the Applicant alleges that, as a result of the Act concernedand its application to him, he is the victim of a violation of Article9 (Art. 9) of the Convention;Whereas Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention provides as follows:"(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience andreligion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or beliefand freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public orprivate, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teachingpractice and observance.(2) Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject onlyto such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in ademocratic society in the interests of public safety, for theprotection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection ofthe rights and freedoms of others."Whereas the Commission has examined the Application in relation toArticle 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention and has had regard to its previousdecisions in similar cases (see, in particular, Yearbook V, pages 278and 286, Collection of Decisions, Volume 18, page 40);Whereas in the present case the question first arises as to whether thefacts alleged could be considered to concern "the right to freedom ofthought, conscience and religion" as guaranteed by paragraph (1) ofArticle 9 (Art. 9-1);Whereas, in so far as this provision is involved, the Commission findsit clear that the Netherlands legislation concerned and its applicationin the present case are justified under paragraph (2) of Article 9(Art. 9-2); whereas in this respect the Commission has noted that thepurpose of the compulsory motor insurance scheme is to safeguard therights of third parties who may become victims of motor accidents; andwhereas paragraph (2) of Article 9 (Art. 9-2) expressly permits suchlimitations of the freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs as arenecessary in a democratic society "for the protection of the rights andfreedoms of others";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.