CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 septembre 1995

.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           1. Application No. 14561/89       2. Application No. 14657/89       by J.S.                           by P.B. and A.B       against the Netherlands           against the Netherlands         3. Application No. 15105/89       4. Application No. 15343/89       by C.A. and W.H. VAN DEN BERG     by A.A. and E.A.       against the Netherlands           against the Netherlands         5. Application No. 15712/89       6. Application No. 15908/89       by J.W. JANSEN                    by J.B. and M.B.       against the Netherlands           against the Netherlands         7. Application No. 15988/90       8. Application No. 16118/90       by F.C. VAN OIRSCHOT              by Th.C.M. GIEBELS       against the Netherlands           against the Netherlands         9. Application No. 16513/90       10. Application No. 16583/90       by G.J.T. WILLEMSEN               by H.P.J. SIMONS       against the Netherlands           against the Netherlands         11. Application No. 16843/90      12. Application No. 16896/90       by J.O. and C.O.                  by J.S. and Th.S.       against the Netherlands           against the Netherlands         13. Application No. 16897/90      14. Application No. 17001/90       by J.W. and D.W.                  by J.B.G. KLINK       against the Netherlands           against the Netherlands         15. Application No. 17241/90      16. Application No. 17252/90       by F.S.                           by H. BRAAM       against the Netherlands           against the Netherlands         17. Application No. 17675/91      18. Application No. 17883/91       by A.J. VERSMISSEN                by Th.B.       against the Netherlands           against the Netherlands         19. Application No. 18340/91      20. Application No. 18615/91       by P.F.M. VAN DER HEIJDEN         by P.H.       against the Netherlands           against the Netherlands         21. Application No. 19590/92      22. Application No. 19591/92       by C.D.                           by J.B.       against the Netherlands           against the Netherlands         23. Application No. 19637/92      24. Application No. 20311/92       by L.A.M. VERHAGEN                by L.A.G. HUIJBEN       against the Netherlands           against the Netherlands                         25. Application No. 22532/93                       by E.P. and C.P.                       against the Netherlands         The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 7 September 1995, the following members being present:              Mr.    H. DANELIUS, President            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            MM.    G. JÖRUNDSSON                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN              Ms.    M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the 25 applications mentioned in the Appendix to this decision;         Having regard to:   -      the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of       the Commission;   -      the observations submitted by the respondent Government on       9 December 1994 and the observations in reply submitted by the       applicants on 6 April 1995 (Nos. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19,       20, 23 and 24), 3 May 1995 (No. 25) and 30 May 1995 (Nos. 1, 3,       4, 6, 12, 13, 18, 21 and 22);         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicants are all dairy farmers, holding Dutch nationality, and reside in the Netherlands.         In the proceedings before the Commission the applicants mentioned under Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 18, 21 and 22 are represented by Mr. G.W.A. Bernards, a lawyer practising in Eindhoven. The applicants mentioned under Nos. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23 and 24 are represented by Mr. Th. Linssen, a lawyer practising in Tilburg. The applicant mentioned under No. 5 is represented by Mr. J.P.M.M. Heijkant, a lawyer practising in Dongen. The applicant mentioned under No. 14 is represented by Mr. E.G.J. Hendriksen, a lawyer practising in Zwolle. The applicant mentioned under No. 16 is represented by Mr. A.J. Boonstra, a lawyer practising in Groningen. The applicants mentioned under No. 25 are represented by Mr. J.P.E. Baakman, a legal adviser established at Haaksbergen.         The facts of the respective cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.   a.     General background         According to the Council Regulations (EEC) No. 856/84 and No. 857/84, implemented in the Netherlands by Ordinance no. J 1731 on the Super Levy of 18 April 1984 (Beschikking Superheffing - hereinafter referred to as the "1984 Ordinance"), dairy farmers are allowed to produce a certain amount of milk, calculated on the basis of their production capacity prior to 1 April 1984 (the "reference quantity"). For any surplus production a levy (superheffing) must be paid.         Dairy producers who, between 1 September 1981 and 1 March 1984, entered into investment obligations of at least 100.000 Dutch guilders for an expansion of their cow stands by at least 25% to more than 60 may be allotted an extra reference quantity based on the capacity of the expanded farm (Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance). Pursuant to Section 7 of the Super Levy Ordinance for Farm Succession Undermanning Situations (Beschikking Superheffing Bedrijfsopvolgingssituaties Onderbezetting) of 16 May 1986 this possibility also exists in the case of farm successions, provided that the investment obligations amount to at least 20.000 Dutch guilders.         Pursuant to Section 14 of the 1984 Ordinance, when dairy farm land was sold between 1 April 1984 and 31 March 1985, the entitlement to a reference quantity would be diminished correspondingly.         An extra reference quantity may be allotted in exceptional cases not explicitly provided for in the 1984 Ordinance (Section 19). For instance this may apply in cases where, due to "force majeure", the milk production in a reference year was so low that it cannot be considered as being representative of the "normal" production of the dairy farm, or in cases where it is established that dairy farm land has been acquired by way of a notarial contract of sale before 1 April 1984 without, however, being formally inscribed in the relevant public registers before that date, but which has been formally inscribed between 1 April 1984 and 1 April 1985.         When, between 1 September 1981 and 1 March 1984, dairy producers had entered into investment obligations for an amount between 50.000 and 100.000 Dutch guilders for a replacement or an expansion of their cow stands by at least 25% to more than 60, an extra reference quantity may be allotted under Section 2 of the Additional Super Levy Ordinance (Beschikking Aanvulling Superheffing).         If a plot of dairy farm land is sold, a corresponding part of the reference quantity may be transferred to the new owner under Section 7 para. 1 of the 1985 Super Levy Ordinance (Beschikking Superheffing 1985). Pursuant to Section 8 paras. 1 and 2 of the 1985 Super Levy Ordinance such a transfer will be registered by the provincial Director of Agriculture, Nature and Outdoor Recreation (Directeur Landbouw, Natuur en Openluchtrecreatie) following a notification of the transfer by the parties involved. According to Section 19 of the 1985 Super Levy Ordinance a party may, within 30 days, file an objection (bezwaarschrift) to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Minister van Landbouw en Visserij) against the Director's decision in respect of the registration of the reference quantity transfer.         Under Section 10 of the 1985 Super Levy Ordinance an extra reference quantity may be allotted in case dairy farmers temporarily have to interrupt their production activities as a result of a land consolidation project.   b.     Particular circumstances of the individual cases   1.                   Application No. 14561/89 - J.S.         The applicant was born in 1952 and resides at Veulen-Venray. On 20 June 1984 he applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance. On 18 October 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply (Directeur voor Landbouw en Voedselvoorziening) of the province of Limburg provisionally allotted to the applicant a reference quantity of 529.463 kilogrammes.         However, an investigation by the General Inspection Service of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Algemene Inspectiedienst, hereinafter referred to as the "GIS") concluded that certain documents submitted by the applicant in support of his request had been antedated. On the basis of this finding, the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply rejected the applicant's request for a reference quantity on 20 August 1985. On 17 September 1985 the applicant appealed to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal (College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven).         On 8 October 1986 the President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's request for an interim measure (voorlopige voorziening).         Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was represented by a lawyer and in which the parties and a number of witnesses were heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal on 3 August 1988, finding that it had not been established that the applicant had entered into investment obligations before 1 March 1984.   2.              Application No. 14657/89 - P.B. and A.B.         The first applicant was born in 1921. He died pending the proceedings before the Commission. The second applicant, born in 1962, resides in Dongen. As from 1 January 1984, until the first applicant's death, they formed a partnership (maatschap). On 8 June 1984 they applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance.         On 14 September 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Noord-Brabant provisionally allotted to them a reference quantity of 233.490 kilogrammes, against which decision the applicants filed an objection (bezwaarschrift) on 9 October 1984.         On 6 November 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply partially granted the applicants' request for a reference quantity. They were allotted a reference quantity of 233.490 kilogrammes. They filed an objection against this decision with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Minister van Landbouw en Visserij, hereinafter referred to as the "Minister") on 14 November 1984.         On 23 August 1985, the Minister rejected the applicant's objection against the decision of 6 November 1984 as ill-founded. On 2 September 1985 the applicants appealed to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.         On 2 June 1986 the President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicants' request for an interim measure (voorlopige voorziening).         Following a hearing on 1 July 1986 during which the parties and a witness were heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal, on 2 July 1986, ordered an investigation by the GIS concerning the investment obligations entered into by the applicants. The GIS submitted its findings on 9 September 1986.         On 1 June 1988 the Industrial Appeals Tribunal quashed the Minister's decision, finding that in the challenged decision an incorrect factual assumption in respect of the applicants' partnership had been made. Consequently, it ordered the Minister to take a new decision with due regard to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal's findings. On 20 June 1988, pursuant to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal's decision, the Minister fixed a new reference quantity. The applicant filed an appeal against this decision with the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.         Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicants were represented by a lawyer and in which the parties were heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicants' appeal on 5 October 1989, holding that the merits of the appeal had already been decided in its judgment of 20 June 1988 and that the Minister's new decision of 20 June 1988 was in conformity with that judgment.   3.        Application No. 15105/89 - C.A. and W.H. VAN DEN BERG         The applicants were born in 1943 and 1947 respectively and both reside in Oploo. On 21 June 1984 they applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance.         On 21 September 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Noord-Brabant rejected the applicants' request.         On 10 October 1984 the applicants filed an objection with the Minister, who rejected it as ill-founded on 21 March 1985. The applicants, represented by their lawyer, appealed to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal on 19 April 1985.         On 24 August 1988 the President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected their appeal as manifestly ill-founded because it did not appear that the applicants had entered into investment obligations within the prescribed period between 1 September 1981 and 1 March 1984. The President based this finding on the fact that on their application form of 21 June 1984, the applicants had stated that the investment obligations, upon which their application was based, were entered into on 6 May 1981.         After having heard the applicants in chambers (raadkamer), the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicants' objection against the President's decision on 7 November 1988 as ill-founded.   4.              Application No. 15343/89 - A.A. and E.A.         The applicants were born in 1926 and 1958 respectively and both reside in Haps. On 26 June 1984 they applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance.         On 7 December 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Noord-Brabant allotted to them a reference quantity of 432.245 kilogrammes, which was less than they had applied for.         On 22 December 1984 the applicants filed an objection with the Minister, who rejected it as ill-founded on 12 April 1985, holding that the applicants had not proven that, at the time they entered into their investment obligations, they had planned an extension of the number of cow stands on their farm rather than a partial replacement of old cow stands. On 6 May 1985 the applicants appealed to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.         Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicants were represented by a lawyer and in which the parties and a witness were heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicants' appeal on 2 February 1989, holding that the applicants had not proven that their investment obligations only concerned an extension of the cow stands on their farm. The Industrial Appeals Tribunal found no basis for the finding that the applicants had also intended to keep the old cow stands in use when they had decided to enter into investment obligations.   5.               Application No. 15712/89 - J.W. JANSEN         The applicant was born in 1936 and resides in Dongen. On 25 June 1984 he applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance. On 19 October 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Noord-Brabant rejected his request.         On 30 October 1984 the applicant filed an objection with the Minister, who rejected it as ill-founded on 11 March 1986, holding that it had appeared from an GIS investigation that the investment obligations had been contracted after 1 March 1984.         On 26 March 1986 the applicant appealed to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.   On 24 August 1988 the President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the appeal, holding that the applicant had not proved that the investment obligations had been entered into before 1 March 1984. The applicant subsequently filed an objection against the President's decision.         On 18 November 1988 the Registry of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal informed the applicant that, as the Industrial Appeals Tribunal saw no reason to declare the applicant's objection against the President's decision ill-founded or inadmissible, the President's decision was void, and that the applicant's appeal against the Minister's decision of 11 March 1986 would be determined by the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.         Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was represented by a lawyer and in which the parties and a witness were heard on 25 January 1989, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal on 10 May 1989. It found that it had been established that a written confirmation of a construction order dated 19 April 1983 had in fact only been drafted in May/June 1984 and had been antedated upon the applicant's request. It held that the applicant had failed to sufficiently prove, either by written documents or by the examination of a witness, that he had entered into investment obligations before 1 March 1984.   6.              Application No. 15908/89 - J.B. and M.B.         The applicants were both born in 1927 and both reside in Wanroy. On 28 June 1984 they applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance. On 21 September 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Noord-Brabant provisionally allotted to them a reference quantity of 455.664 kilogrammes.         However, in a subsequent investigation by the GIS it was found that documents submitted by the applicants had been antedated and that they had not entered into investment obligations before 1 March 1984. On 12 May 1986, on the basis of the GIS findings, the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply withdrew his provisionally allotted reference quantity and rejected the applicants' request for a reference quantity. On 10 June 1986 the applicants' lawyer filed an appeal to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.         On 13 January 1989 the President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal declared the applicants' appeal ill-founded, holding that the applicants had failed to prove that they had entered into investment obligations between 1 September 1981 and 1 March 1984. On 26 January 1989 the applicants filed an objection against the President's decision.         Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicants were represented by a lawyer and in which the parties and a witness were heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicants' appeal against the decision of 12 May 1986. It noted, inter alia, that both the applicants and the witness heard had confirmed that the date of 18 January 1984 on the submitted construction contract was incorrect. It held that the applicants had failed plausibly to show that they had entered into investment obligations before 1 March 1984.   7.            Application No. 15988/90 - F.C. VAN OIRSCHOT         The applicant was born in 1932 and resides in Boxtel. On 7 June 1984 he applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance. On 14 September 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Noord-Brabant rejected the applicant's request, considering that the applicant had not entered into investment obligations between the prescribed period and that the extension of the number of cow stands was less than the prescribed 25%.         On 9 October 1984 the applicant filed an objection with the Minister, who rejected it on 30 July 1985 as ill-founded. On 21 August 1985 the applicant appealed to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.         Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was represented by a lawyer and in which the parties were heard on 19 April 1989, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal on 7 June 1989. It held that the applicant had not complied with the requirements of Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance in that the extension of the number of cow stands was less than 25%.   8.             Application No. 16118/90 - Th.C.M. GIEBELS         The applicant was born in 1949 and resides in Mierlo. On 24 June 1984 he applied for a reference quantity under Section 19 of the 1984 Ordinance. The Minister rejected the applicant's request on 2 January 1985.         On 9 June 1986 the applicant submitted a new application for a reference quantity. The second application was based on Section 2 of the Additional Super Levy Ordinance. On 30 September 1986 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Noord-Brabant issued favourable advice.         However, on 19 December 1986 the Minister rejected the request, holding that it had not been established that the investment obligations in respect of the applicant's cow stands had been entered into between 1 September 1981 and 1 March 1984. The applicant appealed to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal on 15 January 1987.         On 16 March 1987 the President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's request for an interim measure.         Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was represented by a lawyer and after having heard the parties on two occasions, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the appeal on 15 November 1989. It held that the Minister has correctly refused to allot the applicant a reference quantity on the basis of Section 2 para. 1 of the Additional Super Levy Ordinance.   9.             Application No. 16513/90 - G.J.T. WILLEMSEN         The applicant was born in 1930 and resides in Overloon. On 6 February 1986 the applicant applied for a reference quantity under Section 10 of the Super Levy Ordinance 1985 on the basis of the consolidation of his farm.         On 20 October 1985 the Director of the Land Development Department (Landinrichtingsdienst) initially issued a favourable opinion. However, on 8 December 1986, following further investigation into the applicant's situation, he changed his opinion on the ground that the applicant had not relocated his activities in the framework of the land consolidation and had not produced any milk since 1976.         On 31 December 1986 the Minister rejected the applicant's request for a reference quantity under Section 10 of the 1985 Super Levy Ordinance, holding that the applicant had not produced any milk since 1975. On 23 January 1987 the applicant filed an appeal with the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.         On 18 March 1988 the President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's request for an interim measure.         Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was represented by a lawyer and in which the parties were heard on two occasions, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal on 10 January 1990. It held, inter alia, that the 1985 Super Levy Ordinance contained no basis for an allotment of a reference quantity to the applicant.   10.             Application No. 16583/90 - H.P.J. SIMONS         The applicant was born in 1932 and resides in Haaren. On 14 June 1984 the applicant applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance.         On 31 August 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Noord-Brabant allotted to the applicant a reference quantity of 366.378 kilogrammes, which was less than the applicant had applied for.         On 26 September 1984 the applicant filed an objection against the decision of 31 August 1984 with the Minister, who rejected it as ill- founded on 13 May 1985. The Minister did not find it established that the applicant had intended to continue to use a number of old cow stands when he entered into investment obligations. On 20 May 1985 the applicant appealed to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.         On 29 November 1986 he requested the Tribunal to order an interim measure to the effect that no super levy be collected pending the outcome of the proceedings and to be reimbursed should it be collected. On 22 January 1987 the President of the Tribunal granted this interim measure, provisionally holding that the applicant's request for a reference quantity was justified.         On 4 April 1989 the Minister amended his decision of 13 May 1985 insofar as the number of cow stands on the applicant's farm was fixed at 78, not 88 as had been indicated in the previous decision. In view of the amended decision of the Minister, the applicant supplemented his appeal to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal on 12 April 1989.         Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was represented by a lawyer and in which the parties and two witnesses were heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal on 6 December 1989. It held, inter alia, that the Minister's determination of the number of cow stands for the purposes of Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance was correct and that his decision was properly reasoned.   11.             Application No. 16843/90 - J.O. and C.O.         The applicants were born in 1952 and 1954 respectively and both reside in Venhorst. The applicants form a partnership. On 25 June 1984 they applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance.         On 31 October 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Noord-Brabant rejected the applicants' request, holding that the applicants' investments were less than the required 100.000 Dutch guilders and that their extension of the number of cow stands was less than the required 25%. On 16 November 1984 the applicants filed an objection with the Minister, who rejected it on 5 July 1985. On 30 July 1985 the applicants filed an appeal with the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.         By letter of 24 April 1989 the Minister informed the applicants that in the decision of 5 July 1985 an error had been made in respect of the number of cow stands on the applicants' farm, but that in any event the applicants had not complied with the investment requirements under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance.         Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicants were represented by a lawyer and in which parties and a witness were heard on 26 October 1989, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicants' appeal against the Minister's decision on 16 November 1989. It found that the applicants' investments for the purposes of Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance only amounted to 60.000 Dutch guilders and that, therefore, their application had been rejected on correct grounds.   12.             Application No. 16896/90 - J.S. and Th.S.         The applicants were born in 1931 and 1940 respectively, and reside in Haastrecht. On 21 June 1984 the applicants applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance.         On 22 March 1985 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Zuid-Holland rejected the applicants' request, finding that the applicants' investment obligations had been entered into after 1 March 1984, namely in May 1984.         On 29 March 1985 the applicants filed an objection with the Minister, who, on the basis of an investigation by the GIS confirming the findings of the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply, rejected the applicants' objection as ill-founded on 18 March 1986.         On 15 April 1986 the applicants' lawyer filed an appeal to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.         Following adversarial proceedings, the President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal as ill- founded on 28 June 1989, holding that it had not been established that the applicants had complied with the investment requirements under the 1984 Ordinance. The applicants subsequently filed an objection against the President's decision with the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.         After having heard the applicants in chambers (raadkamer), the Industrial Appeals Tribunal, in its decision of 25 October 1989, held that the President had correctly rejected the appeal, that the applicants' additional submissions did not alter this finding, and rejected the applicants' objection against the President's decision of 28 June 1989 as ill-founded.   13.             Application No. 16897/90 - J.W. and D.W.         The applicants were born in 1942 and 1946 respectively, and reside in Boornzwaag. The applicants form a partnership. On 22 June 1984 the applicants applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance.         On 3 October 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Friesland rejected this request, holding that the extension of the number of cow stands on the applicants' farm was less than the required 25%. On 18 October 1984 the applicants filed an objection with the Minister, who rejected it on 23 August 1985 as ill- founded on the same ground. On 2 September 1985 the applicants filed an appeal with the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.         On 15 June 1987 the President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicants' request for an interim measure. On 20 January 1989 the President rejected the applicants' second request for an interim measure.         Following adversarial proceedings, in which the applicants were represented by a lawyer and in which the parties and a witness were heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicants' appeal on 11 October 1989. It found that the extension of the number of cow stands on the applicants' farm was less than the required 25%.   14.              Application No. 17001/90 - J.B.G. KLINK         The applicant was born in 1920 and resides in Laag Zuthem. On 14 June 1984 he applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance. On 9 November 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Overijssel provisionally allotted to the applicant a reference quantity of 262.490 kilogrammes.         However, on 15 August 1986, following an investigation by the GIS, the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply rejected the applicant's request for a reference quantity, as it had appeared that the investment obligations had not been entered into by the applicant before 1 March 1984. The applicant filed an appeal with the Industrial Appeals Tribunal on 15 September 1986.         On 8 January 1987 the President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's request for an interim measure.         Following adversarial proceedings, in which the applicant was represented by a lawyer and in which the parties and two witnesses were heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal on 6 December 1989. It held, inter alia, that it had been established that the applicant had submitted an antedated confirmation of an order for the construction of a stable, and that it had not been established that the applicant had entered into investment obligations within the meaning of Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance before 1 March 1984.         Also on 6 December 1989 the Industrial Appeals Tribunal, in a different set of proceedings, rejected an appeal lodged by the applicant and his son in respect of a refusal to allot them a reference quota under Section 7 of the Super Levy Ordinance for Farm Succession Undermanning Situations. In those proceedings the Industrial Appeals Tribunal also concluded that it had not been established that the investment obligations had been entered into before 1 March 1984 as required under this Ordinance.   15.                  Application No. 17241/90 - F.S.         The applicant was born in 1966 and resides in St. Oedenrode. On 29 July 1986 he applied for a reference quantity under Section 7 of the Super Levy Ordinance for Farm Succession Undermanning Situations.         On 18 November 1986 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Noord-Brabant rejected the applicant's request finding, inter alia, that the extension of the number of cow stands on the applicant's farm was less than the required 25%. On 15 December 1986 the applicant filed an objection with the Minister, who rejected it on 30 July 1987 as ill-founded, confirming that the extension was less than 25%.         On 25 August 1987 the applicant appealed to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal. On 8 November 1989 the President of the Tribunal rejected the appeal as ill-founded, after having found that the extension of the number of cow stands on the applicant's farm was less than the required 25%. On 18 November 1989 the applicant filed an objection.         After having heard the applicant in chambers, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal, in its decision of 13 February 1990, held that the President had correctly rejected the appeal, that the applicant's additionally submitted grounds were insufficient to alter this finding, and rejected the applicant's objection against the President's decision of 8 November 1989 as ill-founded.   16.                Application No. 17252/90 - H. BRAAM         The applicant was born in 1945 and resides at Kiel-Windeweer. On 8 June 1984 the applicant applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance. On 21 September 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Groningen allotted to the applicant a reference quantity of 333.874 kilogrammes, which was less than he had applied for.         On 9 October 1984 the applicant filed an objection with the Minister, who rejected it on 22 May 1985 as ill-founded. The Minister held that the applicant had not proved that, at the time he entered into his investment obligations, he planned an extension of the number of cow stands on his farm rather than a partial replacement of old cow stands. On 15 June 1985 the applicant appealed to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.         On 17 August 1989, following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was represented by a lawyer, the President of the Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal as ill-founded, holding that it had sufficiently appeared from submitted documents that the applicant, at the time he entered into his investment obligations, had not intended to continue to use the old cow stands in addition to the cow stands in the new stable to be constructed. On 29 August 1989 the applicant's lawyer filed an objection with the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.         After having heard the applicant in chambers, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the objection as ill-founded. It held that the President had correctly rejected the appeal, that the additionally submitted grounds did not alter this finding, and that the applicant had failed to submit further evidence in order to make his allegations plausible.   17.            Application No. 17675/91 - A.J. VERSMISSEN         The applicant was born in 1937 and resides in Borkel en Schaft. On 24 June 1984 the applicant applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance. On 5 November 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Noord-Brabant rejected the applicant's request, holding that it had not appeared from the submitted evidence that the applicant had entered into investment obligations between 1 September 1981 and 1 March 1984.         On 22 November 1984 the applicant filed an objection with the Minister, who rejected it on 13 June 1985 as ill-founded on the same ground as the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply. On 8 July 1985 the applicant filed an appeal with the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.         Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was represented by a lawyer, in which the parties and a witness were heard and in which the Industrial Appeals Tribunal had sought and obtained further evidence from the applicant, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal on 3 May 1990. It held that the applicant had failed to prove that he had entered into investment obligations between 1 September 1981 and 1 March 1984.   18.                 Application No. 17883/91 - Th.B.         The applicant was born in 1923 and resides in Meerkerk. As the applicant's land was spread over an area in different plots, he decided to sell some of these plots and to buy land adjacent to his own within the framework of a land consolidation plan. These transactions were executed between April and June 1984.         After the applicant had reported the transactions, the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Zuid-Holland, by decision of 26 August 1985, determined the applicant's reference quantity on the basis of the new situation. Pursuant to Sections 5, 14 and 16 of the 1984 Ordinance, the Director took the respective sizes of the plots sold and acquired by the applicant into account in his determination. The new determination resulted in a lower reference quantity for the applicant.         On 18 September 1985 the applicant filed an objection with the Minister, who rejected it on 18 February 1987 as ill-founded, and who refused to apply Section 19 of the 1984 Ordinance in the applicant's case. On 19 March 1987 the applicant filed an appeal with the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.         On 9 May 1989 the President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's request for an interim measure.         Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was represented by a lawyer and in which the parties and a witness were heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal on 20 June 1990. It held that, pursuant to Section 14 of the 1984 Ordinance, the applicant's reference quantity had been correctly reduced and that the Minister had correctly applied Section 19 of the 1984 Ordinance.   19.         Application No. 18340/91 - P.F.M. VAN DER HEIJDEN         The applicant was born in 1952 and resides in Westerhoven. In June 1984 the applicant applied for a reference quantity under Section 19 of the 1984 Ordinance. On 20 November 1984 the Minister rejected the applicant's request.         On 18 December 1984 the applicant filed an appeal with the Industrial Appeals Tribunal. The President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal on 27 May 1987 as ill-founded.         On 8 July 1987 the Registry of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal informed the applicant that, as the Industrial Appeals Tribunal saw no reason to declare the applicant's objection against the President's decision ill-founded or inadmissible, the President's decision was void and that the applicant's appeal against the Minister's decision of 20 November 1984 would be decided by the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.         Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was represented by a lawyer and in which the parties were heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal on 30 January 1990, holding that the Minister had correctly rejected the applicant's request.         On 27 March 1990 the applicant requested a review (herziening) of the decision of 30 January 1990, alleging that a typing error had been made in the date on one of the documents examined by the Industrial Appeals Tribunal. On 18 September 1990 the President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the request for a revision. The applicant's subsequent objection against this decision was rejected on 21 February 1991 by the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.   20.                  Application No. 18615/91 - P.H.         The applicant was born in 1940 and resides in Wellerlooi. On 28 June 1984 the applicant applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance. Following a provisional grant on 1 October 1984, the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Limburg, on 10 April 1985, allotted to the applicant a reference quantity of 389.792 kilogrammes.         On 8 August 1986 the applicant's son, who intended to take over the farm, applied for a reference quantity under the Super Levy Ordinance for Farm Succession Undermanning Situations.         In the course of the examination of the son's request, the GIS also examined the documents submitted by the applicant in 1984 in support of his application of 28 June 1984. It appeared from this examination that the applicant had not entered into investment obligations before 1 March 1984. Consequently, by decision of 23 January 1989, the Minister withdrew the applicant's reference quantity granted on 10 April 1985 with retroactive effect. In the same decision the Minister granted the applicant's son a reference quantity under the Super Levy Ordinance for Farm Succession Undermanning Situations provided the take-over of the farm would occur bef