CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 1 juillet 1992

.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. 15596/89                       by Allegonda VAN DER SLOOT and others                       against the Netherlands           The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 1 July 1992, the following members being present:                MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs. G. H. THUNE              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                  Mr.   K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second Chamber           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 22 June 1989 by Allegonda VAN DER SLOOT and others against the Netherlands and registered on 10 October 1989 under file No. 15596/89;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:     THE FACTS         The applicants are 15 inhabitants of Boxtel, 3 inhabitants of Vught, 1 inhabitant of Sassenheim, 1 inhabitant of Best, 1 inhabitant of Tilburg, an environmental association with its registered seat in Den Dungen and a residence association with its registered seat in Boxtel, the Netherlands.   Their names are appended (Appendix I).         Before the Commission the applicants are represented by Mr. P.A.P.J. van der Sloot, a lawyer practising in Boxtel.         The facts of the case as submitted by the applicants may be summarised as follows.         On 24 May 1973 the Municipal Council (Gemeenteraad) of Boxtel, departing from the existing zoning plan, adopted the zoning plan "Stapelen", in which a road was planned through the recreational and scenic nature area "De Vorstakkers".   Following objections by some of the applicants, the Crown, by Royal Decree (Koninklijke Besluit) of 11 August 1976, refused to approve the part of the zoning plan which concerned that road.         On 23 May 1984 the Municipal Council of Boxtel, after having considered the applicants' objections concerning, inter alia, expected pollution, noise and stench, adopted the zoning plan "Zuidelijke Hoofdweg", in which again a road was planned through "De Vorstakkers". After having considered the applicants' objections against this new plan, the Provincial Executive (Gedeputeerde Staten) of Noord-Brabant approved the new zoning plan in its decision of 27 March 1985. The applicants subsequently appealed to the Crown.         In the proceedings before the Crown, the Administrative Litigation Division of the Council of State (Afdeling geschillen van bestuur van de Raad van State) advised the Crown on 27 July 1987 and 18 April 1988 to quash the decision of 27 March 1985 by the Provincial Executive and to withhold approval of the zoning plan.         The Crown, in its Royal Decree of 28 December 1988, partially quashed the decision of the Provincial Executive, but the plan for the road was upheld.         In order to start the construction of the road, pending the approval of the entire zoning plan "Zuidelijke Hoofdweg", so-called anticipation proceedings were started.         By decision of 18 March 1986 the Provincial Executive of Noord- Brabant granted the Municipal Executive (Burgemeester en Wethouders) of Boxtel a declaration of non-objection (verklaring van geen bezwaar) concerning the first construction phase of the road.   Some of the applicants filed objections against this decision, which the Provincial Executive rejected on 16 September 1986.   These applicants subsequently appealed to the Judicial Division of the Council of State (Afdeling Rechtspraak van de Raad van State).         By decision of 6 May 1986 the Municipal Executive of Boxtel, on the basis of the above declaration of non-objection, granted the Municipality of Boxtel an exemption from the conditions of the zoning plan in force concerning the construction of a specific section of the road.         The objections by some of the applicants against this exemption were rejected by the Municipal Executive of Boxtel on 15 April 1987. These applicants subsequently appealed to the Judicial Division.         The Judicial Division joined the appeals against the decisions of 16 September 1986 and 15 April 1987 and on 26 February 1990 quashed both decisions.   The Judicial Division held, inter alia, that the authorities at issue, after having balanced the interests involved, could not reasonably have reached their decisions.   The Judicial Division considered that, at the time these decisions were taken, there were serious doubts on the Crown's approval of the proposed zoning plan, taking into account that, in respect of the road, it was quite similar to the "Stapelen" zoning plan, the approval of which had been refused by the Crown on 11 August 1976.         The Municipality of Boxtel had, with a view to the construction of the road, also started expropriation proceedings against three of the applicants. The expropriation was pronounced by the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of 's-Hertogenbosch by judgment of 2 October 1987.   On appeal, the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) in its decision of 25 May 1988 quashed the judgment of the Regional Court and referred the case back to the Regional Court.         By judgment of 10 November 1989 the Regional Court of 's- Hertogenbosch refused the request for expropriation by the Municipality of Boxtel.         On 10 September 1990 the Municipal Council of Boxtel, upon a proposal by the Municipal Executive, decided to abandon the plans for the construction of the road at issue and to end all related proceedings. The Municipal Council subsequently started proceedings in order to revoke the Royal Decree of 28 December 1988, which proceedings are still pending.     COMPLAINTS         The applicants originally complained under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that the Crown, in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, was not an independent and impartial tribunal, that the reasonable time had been exceeded as the proceedings at issue started already in 1973 and the outcome was still not clear and that the principle of "ne bis in idem" had not been respected in that the proceedings on the plan of the road were re-opened in the second set of administrative proceedings on the zoning plan.       Following the Municipality's decision of 10 September 1990 to abandon the plans for the construction of the road and to end all related proceedings, the applicants have maintained their complaint concerning the length of the proceedings, including the legal costs involved. They acknowledge that they could claim compensation but submit that they would thereby risk further lengthy proceedings.     THE LAW         The applicants originally complained under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention that their civil rights and obligations have not been determined within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal and that the principle of "ne bis in idem" has not been respected.         Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, insofar as relevant, provides as follows:         "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 applicants were involved in proceedings concerning a zoning plan envisaging the construction of a road.         The Commission notes under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention that on 10 September 1990 the Municipality of Boxtel abandoned its plans for the construction of the road at issue and all related proceedings, but that so far no final decision to revoke the Royal Decree of 28 December 1988 has been taken.         The Commission further observes in respect of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention that the applicants have not sought compensation for the costs they incurred in the proceedings at issue.         However, even assuming that the applicants can be considered as victims within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention and have exhausted all domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention, the Commission considers that the proceedings at issue on the adoption of a new zoning plan envisaging the construction of a road did not, in the particular circumstances of the present case, determine any civil rights or obligations within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention (cf. mutatis mutandis No. 11844/85, Dec. 29.2.88, D.R. 55 p. 205).         It follows that the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber           (K. ROGGE)                            (S. TRECHSEL)                                       APPENDIX   I                             List of the applicants       1)   Allegonda    VAN DER SLOOT, born in 1947, residing in Boxtel;   2)   Freek        VAN DER SLOOT, born in 1971, residing in Boxtel;   3)   Ingrid       VAN DER SLOOT, born in 1968, residing in Boxtel;   4)   Marinus      VAN DER SLOOT, born in 1941, residing in Boxtel;   5)   Bernardus    MAAS,           born in 1909, residing in Boxtel;   6)   Lamberdina   VAN DE SANDE,   born in 1936, residing in Boxtel;   7)   Johannes     VAN DE SANDE,   born in 1938, residing in Vught;   8)   Wilhelmus    VAN LEEUWEN,    born in 1925, residing in Sassenheim;   9)   Adriana      VAN DER SLOOT-                 VAN KRIEKEN,    born in 1911, residing in Boxtel;   10) Marjo        VAN DE SANDE,   born in 1968, residing in Vught;   11) Cornelis     VAN DER SLOOT, born in 1929, residing in Boxtel;   12) Johannes     SPOOR,          born in 1944, residing in Best;   13) Cornelia     SPOOR,          born in 1942, residing in Boxtel;   14) Henricus     KLIJN,          born in 1955, residing in Tilburg;   15) Gerarda      KLIJN,          born in 1955, residing in Boxtel;   16) Lambertus    VAN DER SLOOT, born in 1942, residing in Boxtel;   17) Johannes     DOMS,           born in 1943, residing in Boxtel;   18) Marie        VAN DE SANDE,   born in 1966, residing in Vught;   19) Petrus       VAN DER SLOOT, born in 1947, residing in Boxtel;   20) Johannes     VAN DER SLOOT, born in 1933, residing in Boxtel;   21) Paulus       VAN DER SLOOT, born in 1952, residing in Boxtel;   22) Milieuvereniging "Het Groene Hart" with its registered seat in Den     Dungen;   23) Bewonersvereniging Eindhovenseweg Liempdseweg with its registered seat in Boxtel.