CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 4 mars 1987

.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 }  AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF     Application No. 11230/84 by L. S. against Belgium             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 4 March 1987, the following members being present:                     MM C.A NØRGAARD, President                    G. SPERDUTI                    J.A. FROWEIN                    G. JÖRUNDSSON                    S. TRECHSEL                    B. KIERNAN                    A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                    A. WEITZEL                    J.C. SOYER                    H.G. SCHERMERS                    H. DANELIUS                    H. VANDENBERGHE                    F. MARTINEZ                  Mr   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Art. 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 6 November 1984 by L. S. against Belgium and registered on 9 November 1984 under file No. 11230/84;           Having regard to:     -       the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of         Procedure of the Commission;     -       the Commission's decision of 2 December 1985 to bring the         application to the notice of the respondent Government and         invite them to submit written observations on its         admissibility and merits;     -       the observations submitted by the respondent Government on         18 March 1986 and the observations in reply submitted by the         applicant on 6 June 1986;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   THE FACTS             The facts of the case as they have been submitted by the parties may be summarised as follows.           The applicant is a Belgian citizen, born in 1931 and an administrator by profession.   He resides at Overijse, Belgium.           In the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by Mr.   Stroobants, a lawyer practising at Brussels.           On 1 February 1974, the applicant, as owner of the renovated castle "Coloma" at Sint-Pieters-Leeuw, Belgium, granted a lease of this building to a representative of the Brussels Buildings Directorate, acting in the name of the Belgian Government, Buildings Department (Regie der Gebouwen).           It appears that the Government duly paid rent but that the castle was not inhabited, as a result of which it deteriorated rapidly.           On 11 April 1978, the applicant summoned the Buildings Department to appear before the Justice of the Peace (Vrederechter) of Halle, claiming compensation for global damage to the building as well as for damage done to certain movables in the castle.           On 20 June 1978, the judge appointed an expert to evaluate the damages.           On 6 February 1980, the judge provisionally ordered the Belgian State to pay the applicant BF 1,000,000.-- in damages, with interest from 11 April 1978.   The Belgian State, thereupon, paid the applicant BF 1,206,466.-- on 6 November 1980.           On 22 June 1983, the judge ordered the Belgian State to pay the applicant an additional BF 1,847,500.-- in compensation for the damage to movables with interest from the date of the summons, as well as, provisionally, BF 100,000.-- for legal costs.           The judgment was declared to be enforceable notwithstanding appeal and without security.           At the request of the Belgian State in order to save costs the judgment was not served on the Belgian state but a declaration was made by a senior civil servant on behalf of the Minister of Public Works (Minister van Openbare Werken), on 6 October 1983 that he accepted the aforesaid judgment and that its terms would be complied with.           It appears that the Buildings Department paid the applicant BF 2,373,810.- on 27 December 1985 and BF 146,188.- on 10 January 1986.   COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains that the Belgian Government refused to execute a judgment, which is enforceable notwithstanding any appeal, pronounced against them by one of their own courts, concerning property owned by the applicant.           In addition, the applicant complains of the absence in Belgium of an effective means of obliging the State to pay compensation which it has been ordered to pay, as the property of the Belgian State is unseizable.           The applicant has invoked Art. 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention as well as Art. 13 of the Convention.     &_PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION&S           The application was introduced on 6 November 1984 and registered on 9 November 1984.           The Commission decided on 2 December 1985 to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits before 7 March 1986.   The Government were asked, in particular, whether they intended to comply with the judgment pronounced against them on 22 June 1983.           The Government's observations were submitted on 18 March 1986, the applicant's observations in reply on 6 June 1986.     &_SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES&_   A.       The Government&S           The Government submit that the delay in the execution of the judgment in the present case has its origins in the institutional reform which is at present being carried out in Belgium, as it was in the case of Sequaris, in which the Commission adopted a Report (Sequaris v.   Belgium, Comm.   Rep. 13.7.83, D.R. 32, p. 242).           The following clarification should be added.   Under the system organised by the Act of April 1971 (creating the Buildings Department), and under the various budgetary acts and the administrative rules which apply to the relations between the Buildings Department and the different ministries, the Department concludes the contracts of lease (as was done on 17 February 1974 with the applicant) and pays rent to private owners, subject to reimbursement by the ministries concerned (in the present case the Ministry of Dutch Culture).   However, the latter are directly responsible for the tenant's additional dues as well as for damages which result from the use (or, as in the present case, the non-use) of the premises.           Exceptionally, the Buildings Department accepted to ensure the provisional execution of the judgment of 6 February 1980 (as advance payment) subject to reimbursement by the Ministry of Dutch Culture.   Following the Special Act of 9 August 1980 (Institutional Reforms) and the transfer of functions it organises, it is the Flemish Community which has reimbursed the Department the sums advanced by the latter.           The Department, however, refused to advance the compensation for the dilapidations which were awarded to the applicant by the final judgment of 22 June 1983, insofar as the Flemish Community, refusing to be answerable for the regulations previously set up between the Department and the ministries, did not accept responsibility for the dilapidations found.           The situation developed following the Act of 5 March 1984, concerning outstanding accounts and charges of the communities, regions and national economic sectors.   Under Section 1 of the above Act, the Flemish Community stated that it was prepared on 26 February 1985 to pay the compensation awarded by the judgment of 22 June 1983, whilst nevertheless insisting that the Department ensured the provisional execution of the judgment and whilst refusing to pay the interests due to the delay which, in its view, had been caused by the Department's failure to execute the judgment.   Thus, the legal uncertainties which surround the new institutions have caused the delay in executing the judgment at issue.           However, in order that the dispute between public institutions does not prejudice the rights of private persons, the Buildings Department decided to pay the sums, interest included, as established by the judgment of 22 June 1983 and on 27 December 1985 transferred the sum of BF 2,373,810.-, and on 10 January 1986 the sum of BF 146,188.- to the applicant, without prejudice to the settlement that has to be reached as to the payment on the national level.           With regard to the admissibility, the Government submit that the applicant failed to respect the six months' time-limit running from the date of the final decision.   This decision was given by the Justice of the Peace of Halle on 22 June 1983, whereas the application was introduced on 6 November 1984 and registered on 9 November 1984.           Moreover, the Government submit that, because of the execution of the judgment by the Buildings Department and the payments carried out on 27 December 1985 and 10 January 1986, the applicant has lost his quality of victim within the meaning of Article 25 of the Convention and, consequently, the application should be considered ill-founded.   B.       The applicant           The applicant submits that it is of no interest to Belgian citizens that the Belgian Government has created a certain political situation and certain political bodies which contest each other's competence to the detriment of the Belgian citizen.           Moreover, the Belgian Government only reacted to the situation after the applicant incurred the costs of introducing a complaint with the Commission.   The applicant would therefore wish to receive compensation for these costs from the Belgian Government.           With regard to admissibility, the applicant points out that the six months' time-limit cannot be said to have run from 22 June 1983, the date of the relevant judgment.   Only when he realised that the Belgian Government was not going to execute the judgment, the applicant decided to introduce a complaint with the Commission.   In this respect, the applicant further submits that in view of the slowness of the Belgian administration in general a time lapse of several months is not unusual before a payment is possibly made.   THE LAW           The applicant has complained that the Belgian Government refused to execute a judgment pronounced against them and about the absence of an effective means in Belgium of obtaining such execution. He has invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention and Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention.           Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) to the Convention provides, inter alia:           "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."           Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention provides:           "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this         Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy         before a national authority notwithstanding that the         violation has been committed by persons acting in an         official capacity."           The Government have submitted that the application should be rejected for non-observance of the six months' time-limit prescribed by Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.           The Commission finds, however, that the failure by the Belgian authorities to execute the final judgment of 22 June 1983 constituted a continuing situation, which still existed when the application was introduced.   Consequently, the application cannot be said to have been introduced out of time.           The Government have further submitted that, since the Belgian authorities meanwhile did execute the judgment concerned, the applicant can no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention.           It is not disputed between the parties that on 27 December 1985 and 10 January 1986 the sums to which the applicant was entitled under the judgment of 22 June 1983 were in fact paid to him; and the applicant now merely claims compensation for the costs incurred in bringing his application before the Commission.           The Convention does not provide for the reimbursement of costs incurred in bringing cases before the Commission which finally are declared inadmissible (save to the limited extent to which the Commission's Rules of Procedure allow for the grant of free legal aid).   However, the Commission regards as most unfortunate the fact that, in cases such as the present, individuals may be required to incur considerable personal expense whilst awaiting settlement of their legitimate claims.           Nevertheless, the Commission, noting that the Belgian Government has now complied with the judgment given in favour of the applicant on 22 June 1983, finds that he may no longer claim to be a victim within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention.           It follows that the application must be rejected as being 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 INADMISSIBILE   Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission          (H.C. KRÜGER)                                (C.A. NØRGAARD)