CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 10 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 10 October 1986, the following members being present:                         MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President                           J. A. FROWEIN                           F. ERMACORA                           M. A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES                           E. BUSUTTIL                           G. JÖRUNDSSON                           G. TENEKIDES                           S. TRECHSEL                           B. KIERNAN                           A. WEITZEL                           J. C. SOYER                           H. G. SCHERMERS                           H. DANELIUS                           G. BATLINER                           J. CAMPINOS                           H. VANDENBERGHE                       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 20 December 1984 by C.B. B.V. and O.H. B.V. against the Netherlands and registered on 18 March 1985 under File No. 11452/85;   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 applicants may be summarised as follows:   The first applicant is a limited holding company under Dutch law with registered office at Rotterdam.   The second applicant is also a limited holding company under Dutch law with registered office at Amsterdam.   In the proceedings before the Commission, the applicants are represented by Mr. M. H. J. Toxopeus, a lawyer practising at Zoetermeer.   In October 1980 the applicants, who owned a number of flats at Dordrecht which they apparently intended to sell, initiated civil proceedings against the municipality of Dordrecht before the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Dordrecht.   The applicants contended that the municipality had committed a tort when issuing a decree containing rules on the application of Section 1 of the Housing Act 1947 (Verordening houdende regelen voor de toepassing van artikel 1 van de Woonruimtewet 1947) on 22 April 1980.   This decree provided, inter alia, that residence permits for housing, which was last rented out for Dfl. 400.- per month or less, were only to be granted to prospective tenants or to buyers who intended to live there themselves, if these could be considered as urgently seeking housing (urgent woningzoekende).   The applicants requested the court, inter alia, to order the municipality to withdraw the decree, to publish this withdrawal and to pay them Dfl. 3,608,150.- in damages.   On 28 January 1981, the court ordered that the contested provisions of the decree no longer be applied and that this be published, and rejected the applicants' other claims.   Thereupon, the applicants, and subsequently the municipality of Dordrecht, appealed to the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) of The Hague.   On 11 May 1983, the Court of Appeal quashed the decision of the Regional Court and rejected all claims by the applicants.   The Court considered, inter alia, that the contested decree was in conformity with Section 4 of the Housing Decree 1974, (Woonruimtebeschikking 1947), based on the Housing Act 1947, which provides that no conditions may be attached to the granting of residence permits other than those which are conducive to a rational distribution of housing. The litigious decree was also found to be in conformity with the preamble of the Housing Act which referred to the necessity of establishing regulations for such a distribution in view of the existing housing shortage.   The applicants thereupon appealed to the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), but their appeal was rejected on 29 June 1984.   According to the Supreme Court, the decision of the Court of Appeal had been taken in accordance with the law.   COMPLAINTS   The applicants claim that their property rights have been infringed upon by the decree containing rules on the application of Section 1 of the Housing Act 1947, issued by the municipality of Dordrecht.   The applicants contend that they must be allowed to sell or rent out their property in that municipality in the most profitable way.   They also claim that there is no housing shortage in Dordrecht.   The applicants have invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention.   THE LAW   The applicants have complained that the Dutch authorities, by establishing certain regulations concerning the sale or rent of housing, have interfered with their rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention which provides:   "1.   Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions.   No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.   The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties."   The facts as presented by the applicants make it clear that the question before the Commission is whether the control of the use of the applicants' property was justified.   The Commission notes that the impugned regulations generally aimed at a rational distribution of housing, and in particular were designed to provide cheap housing for people who were considered to be urgently seeking housing.   Moreover, these regulations did not interfere with existing contracts but only laid down conditions for the future letting or sale of housing as it became available.   Furthermore, the Commission considers that the applicants have failed to substantiate their allegation that there was no housing shortage in Dordrecht at the relevant time.   Moreover, the Commission has had regard to the balance struck by the Dutch authorities between the applicants' interests and the legitimate social policy aim of providing adequate cheap housing, and is satisfied that there was a reasonable degree of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised (cf. e.g. No. 8003/77, Dec. 3.10.79, D.R. 17, p. 80 ff).   Under these circumstances, the Commission finds that the interference with the applicants' peaceful enjoyment of their possessions was justified under the second paragraph of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention as necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest.   Consequently, the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) 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)