CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 mai 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s564605FC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sDD5D58F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFAEFDAFC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBA699FBB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA13580DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .s4BD72CAE { width:215.81pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 56698/00 by Bernardus J.M. HUTTEN against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 11   May 2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   W. Thomassen ,   Mr   M. Ugrekhelidze, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 February 2000, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, B.J.M. Hutten, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1947 and lives in Wilp. He was represented before the Court by Mr   G.W.H.J. de Koning, a lawyer practising in Apeldoorn. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 17 December 1991, the applicant filed a request with the Voorst Municipal Council ( gemeenteraad ) for compensation under Article 49 of the Town and Country Planning Act ( Wet op de Ruimtelijke Ordening ) for damage caused by a partial revision of a zoning plan relating to land owned by him. He requested the Municipal Council to determine his request speedily. This request was rejected by the Municipal Council on 27 January 1992. The applicant was informed of this decision by letter of 30 January 1992. On 27 February 1992, the applicant filed an appeal with the Administrative Litigation Division ( Afdeling voor Geschillen van Bestuur ) of the Council of State ( Raad van State ). He completed this appeal on 10   July 1992 by submitting the grounds for his appeal. On 16   November   1992, the Municipal Council submitted its written statement of defence ( verweerschrift ) to the Administrative Litigation Division. On 14 July 1993, the Administrative Litigation Division requested an official report ( ambtsbericht ) on the matter from the Ministry of Housing, Planning and Environment Management ( Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening and Milieubeheer ). This official report was submitted to the Administrative Litigation Division on 26 May 1994. In the meantime, on 1 January 1994, the General Administrative Law Act had entered into force, laying down new uniform rules of administrative procedure. On the same date, the newly established Administrative Jurisdiction Division ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of the Council of State took over the functions of, and all proceedings then pending before, the Administrative Litigation Division, which ceased to exist. On 19 September 1994, a hearing on the applicant's appeal was held before the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. It gave its decision on 26   September 1994. Considering that the Municipal Council had unjustly failed to seek the opinion of an independent expert before determining the applicant's request, it quashed the decision of 27 January 1992 and issued an order for costs against the Voorst municipal authorities. On 14 November 1994, the Voorst municipal authorities commissioned an independent expert to assess the damage incurred by the applicant. This report was sent to the municipal authorities on 25 January 1995. The expert recommended in the report that the applicant be awarded a certain sum by way of damages, as well as legal interest calculated as from 21 May 1991. On 2 March 1995, the applicant requested the municipal authorities to inform him when the Municipal Council would examine his case. By letter of 20 April 1995, the applicant was informed that this examination had been scheduled for 29 May 1995 and that the Municipal Council would consider a proposal by the Mayor and Aldermen ( Burgemeester en Wethouders ) to reject the applicant's request for compensation. In order to be able to obtain a further expert opinion, the applicant requested an adjournment of the examination by the Municipal Council until 11 July 1994, which request was granted. On 24 July 1995, contrary to the advice given by the expert on 25   January 1995, the Voorst Municipal Council rejected the applicant's request for compensation. The applicant filed an objection ( bezwaar ) with the Municipal Council, which was heard before the Commission for Appeals and Objections ( Commissie voor de bezwaar- en beroepsschriften ) on 31 October 1995. By decision of 18 December 1995, in accordance with the advice given on 8 November 1995 by the Commission for Appeals and Objections, the Municipal Council rejected the applicant's objection as ill-founded. The applicant, who was informed of this decision on 29 December 1995, filed an appeal with the Zutphen Regional Court ( arrondissementsrechtbank ) on 8   February 1996. On 21 February 1996, the Regional Court requested the applicant to submit his grounds for appeal. After having requested and obtained a total 4   week extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose, the applicant submitted his grounds of appeal on 15 April 1996. These grounds were communicated to the other party, requesting the latter to submit inter alia its statement of defence. After having sought and obtained a 4 week extension of the time-limit fixed for this purpose, the Voorst municipal authorities filed their statement of defence on 11 June 1996. On 27 November 1997, after a further round of written submissions by the parties, a hearing was held before the Regional Court. In its judgment of 12   January 1998, the Regional Court rejected the applicant's appeal. On 20 February 1998, the applicant filed an appeal with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. He completed his appeal on 23   June   1998 by submitting his written grounds of appeal. In these grounds, the applicant requested the Administrative Jurisdiction Division to quash the Regional Court's judgment and to determine the dispute. The Municipal Council submitted a written statement of defence to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division on 3 September 1998. In its decision of 3 August 1999, following a hearing held on 7   December 1998, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division accepted the applicant's appeal. It found that the decision of 18 December 1995 had not been duly reasoned. Consequently, it quashed the judgment of 12   January   1998, admitted the applicant's appeal against the decision of 18   December 1995, quashed the latter decision, ordered the Municipal Council to take a new decision with due regard to the considerations of the Administrative Jurisdiction Division and issued an order for costs against the Voorst municipal authorities. As from 3 August 1999, the applicant and the municipal authorities examined the possibility of reaching a friendly settlement, but failed to reach an agreement. In an undated decision received by the applicant's lawyer on 21   September 2001, the Municipal Council awarded the applicant compensation in an amount of 11,218.14 euros, and ordered that interest be payable on this sum as from the date of filing of the applicant's compensation request. The Municipal Council rejected the remainder of the applicant's claim. On 30 October 2001, the applicant filed an appeal against this decision with the Zutphen Regional Court and, on 16 January 2002, completed his appeal by submitting his grounds of appeal. The Voorst municipal authorities' statement of defence was submitted to the Regional Court on 26   February 2002. On 6 December 2002, a hearing was held before the Regional Court. On 20 January 2003, the Regional Court handed down its judgment in which it rejected the applicant's appeal. On 27 February 2003, the applicant filed an appeal against the judgment of 20 January 2003 with the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. These proceedings are currently still pending. THE LAW The applicant's complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 17 December 1991 and are still pending. They have therefore already lasted more than twelve years. According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings is in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government reject the allegation. The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicant's conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.     S. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President