CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 6 octobre 1986

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 6 October 1986, the following members being present:                         MM. C. A. NØRGAARD                           J. A. FROWEIN                           G. TENEKIDES                           S. TRECHSEL                           B. KIERNAN                           A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                           A. WEITZEL                           J. C. SOYER                           H. G. SCHERMERS                           H. DANELIUS                           G. BATLINER                           J. CAMPINOS                       Mrs G. H. THUNE                       Sir Basil HALL                       Mr. F. MARTINEZ                         Mr. H. C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission   Having regard to Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;   Having regard to the application introduced on 29 May 1984 by H.C. B. against The Netherlands and registered on 14 November 1984 under file No. 11238/84;   Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;   Having deliberated;   Decides as follows:   THE FACTS   The facts of the case as they have been submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows:   The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1927 and at present residing at Groningen, the Netherlands.   It appears that the applicant owns an old farmhouse that was put on the list of protected monuments by Ministerial Decree of 7 July 1977.   In 1978, the applicant obtained a Government subsidy to restore this building.   The applicant then entered into negotiations with a building company which, he claims, did not lead to an agreement. However, it appears that the building company nevertheless started to carry out restoration works on the applicant's building in August 1979.   Despite protests by the applicant, the company appears to have completed the restoration in March 1980.   The company subsequently claimed costs from the applicant, and brought proceedings before the Arbitration Council for Building Companies (Raad van Arbitrage voor de Bouwbedrijven).   On 22 May 1980 the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Groningen authorised (vanwaardeverklaring) the conservatory seizure (conservatoir beslag) of certain assets of the applicant, on the condition that the company's claim should be accepted by the arbitral decision.   On 17 August 1981, the Arbitration Council in an interlocutory decision rejected the applicant's claim that it was not competent to decide on the claim against him and ordered that the applicant pay certain costs.   The applicant, thereupon, requested the President of the Regional Court of Amsterdam not to authorise execution of the arbitral decision.   However, at the request of the building company, the President, on 8 September 1981, did authorise execution of the interlocutory decision.   The applicant, whilst invoking inter alia Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, thereupon appealed to the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) of Amsterdam, but his appeal was rejected on 9 March 1982 as having been introduced out of time.   The applicant then appealed to the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) which, on 10 December 1982, quashed the decision of the Court of Appeal and ordered that this court should decide on the applicant's original appeal.   On 15 June 1983, the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam quashed the decision of the President of the Regional Court of Amsterdam of 8 September 1981 and decided not to authorise execution of the interlocutory arbitral decision.   The Court considered that it had not been sufficiently demonstrated that the parties had agreed to submit their dispute to arbitration.   Meanwhile, on 6 October 1982, the Arbitration Council had ordered the applicant to pay the building company Dfl. 220, 539.98 plus costs and interest.   Despite a request by the applicant to the contrary, the President of the Regional Court of Amsterdam decided to authorise execution of the arbitral judgment on 18 October 1982.   The applicant again appealed to the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam, which, also on 15 June 1983, quashed this decision of the President also because it had been insufficiently demonstrated that the parties had intended to submit their dispute to arbitration. However, since the Court did not decide on the question raised by the applicant whether he was either obliged to or entitled to have the dispute with the building company decided by arbitration, the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court.   However, on 6 January 1984, the Supreme Court rejected this appeal. The Court found that the applicant could not be considered to have an interest, since the required finding would not have resulted in a different outcome.   Since his lawyer apparently failed to submit certain essential documents to the Supreme Court, the applicant requested revision, but this request was declared inadmissible on 30 March 1984.   A request for revision of this decision was declared inadmissible on 15 June 1984.   It appears that on 3 October 1984, the Regional Court of Utrecht declared that the arbitral decision of 17 August 1981 was null and void and decided that the applicant's damages resulting from the arbitration proceedings be compensated by the building company.   The court further decided on the claim by the building company on the applicant.   Meanwhile, the applicant had introduced summary proceedings before the President of the Regional Court of Amsterdam requesting reimbursement from the building company.   However, this request was refused on 10 March 1983.   An appeal against this decision was rejected by the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam on 8 December 1983.   The applicant then appealed to the Supreme Court.   On 1 February 1985, the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's complaint against the decision of the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam of 8 December 1983.   It appears that in the meantime the applicant had also introduced a complaint with the Supervisory Board of the Bar Association (Raad van Toezicht der Orde van Advocaten) of Groningen against the lawyer who had been representing him.   However, on 7 October 1983, the Board rejected the applicant's complaints and on 12 December 1983 fixed the fees to be paid by the applicant on the basis of the Decree on Fees in civil matters (Besluit tarieven in burgerlijke zaken).   The President of the Regional Court of Groningen decided to authorise the execution of the lawyer's claim for fees on 5 March 1984, despite a request to the contrary by the applicant, who invoked Article 6, para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   COMPLAINTS   The applicant complains, inter alia, that the Dutch courts did not decide the question whether he was entitled or obliged to submit his case to arbitration.   He alleges that the courts thus did not determine his civil rights and obligations, contrary to the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   The applicant further complains about the proceedings before the Supervisory Board of the Bar Association, concerning various complaints about his lawyer.   The Board fixed the fees to be paid by the applicant at a certain amount, and the President of the Regional Court of Groningen on 5 March 1984 authorised the execution of this decision.   The applicant claims that the proceedings concerned the determination of his civil rights and obligations and that the president failed to take his submissions under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention into account.   He claims that the proceedings before the Supervisory Board of the Bar Association were not in accordance with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   THE LAW   1.       The applicant has complained that the Dutch courts did not decide the question whether he was entitled to or, alternatively, obliged to submit his case to arbitration.   He has invoked Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, which reads, inter alia,   "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law..."   The Commission observes that the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam on 15 June 1983 decided not to authorise the execution of the arbitral decision in the applicant's case because it had not sufficiently been demonstrated that the parties had intended to submit their dispute to arbitration.   The Commission is of the opinion that the Court, by not deciding whether the applicant could have had his case decided by arbitration, did not interfere with any right of the applicant under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   It follows that this part of the applicant must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   2.       The applicant has also complained that the proceedings concerning his complaints about his lawyer and the fees charged by the latter before the Supervisory Board of the Bar Association did not meet the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.   Insofar as the applicant's complaint concerns the proceedings against his lawyer, the Commission recalls that the Convention does not guarantee the right to institute criminal proceedings against a third person.   Nor does the Convention guarantee a right to institute disciplinary proceedings against a third person.   This aspect of the complaint is therefore incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.   With regard to the applicant's complaint about the fixing of his lawyer's fees by the Supervisory Board of the Bar Association, the Commission notes that the applicant did not introduce an appeal (verzet) against the decision of the President of the Regional Court of Groningen to authorise the execution of the decision by the Supervisory Board.   Consequently, the applicant has not, with regard to this complaint, complied with the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and this part of the application must therefore be rejected under Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Commission   DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE   Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission          (H.C. KRÜGER)                             (C.A. NØRGAARD)