CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 25 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 } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .sDAF6EE49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .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 } .sE27D9C81 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4AD8A65C { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCACA8EA8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sBDF9DEC9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-14.15pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sFAEFDAFC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt; 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 } .s5EA978D4 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s99671D1 { width:16.88pt; display:inline-block } .s585D075D { width:245.49pt; display:inline-block } .sDEA786DA { width:210.67pt; display:inline-block } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 73523/01 by WAGENAAR et al. against the Netherlands   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 25   May   2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   W. Thomassen ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni, judges , and Mr T.L. Early ,   Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 October 2000, Having regard to the Court's decision of 20 October 2003 to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and its decision of the same date to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the subsequent proceedings, Having regard to the parties' formal agreement on a friendly settlement of the case submitted by the Government on 13 April 2004 and received by the Court on 21 April 2004, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Tiemen Wagenaar and Mrs Alida R.C. Wagenaar ‑ Huizeling, are Netherlands nationals, who were born in 1950 and 1953 respectively and live in Groningen. They were represented before the Court by Mr R. van Asperen, a lawyer practising in Groningen. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mrs J. Schukking, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. On 14 December 1995, the Zuidhorn municipal authorities instituted proceedings against the applicants before the Groningen District Court Judge ( kantonrechter ), claiming reimbursement of welfare benefits which had been paid to them without justification. According to the municipal authorities the applicants had failed to declare income they had earned by working during the period in which they were in receipt of welfare benefits. On 22 April 1996, the applicants submitted their written statement of defence with the District Court Judge, to which the Zuidhorn municipal authorities responded on 8 July 1996. On 23 December 1996, the applicants filed a reaction to the municipal authorities' submissions of 8 July 1996 with the District Court Judge.   By decision of 14 December 1998, the Groningen District Court Judge ordered the applicants to reimburse, in monthly instalments of 130   Netherlands Guilders (NLG), the Zuidhorn municipal authorities a total amount of NLG 11,366.11 for welfare benefits which they had received without justification. On 7 January 1999, the applicants filed an appeal with the Groningen Regional Court ( arrondissementsrechtbank ). On 26 January 1999, the Zuidhorn municipal authorities filed written observations on the applicants' appeal. On 25 May 1999, following a hearing held on 2 March 1999, the Groningen Regional Court rejected the applicants' appeal. On 19 July 1999, the applicants filed an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court ( Hoge Raad ). The Zuidhorn municipal authorities filed written observations on 26 August 1999 and, on 4 February 2000, the advisory opinion of the Procurator General to the Supreme Court was filed. On 28 April 2000, the Supreme Court rejected the applicants' appeal in cassation. COMPLAINT The applicants originally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings on the municipal authorities' reimbursement claim had exceeded a reasonable time. THE LAW On 21 April 2004 the Court received from the Government the following declaration, signed jointly by the parties' representatives: “The Government of the Netherlands (“the Government”) and Mr. Tiemen Wagenaar and Mrs. Alida R.C. Wagenaar-Huizeling (“the applicants”) have now reached the following agreement in full and final settlement of the applicants' claims in order to terminate the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights (“the Court”): 1.   The Government will pay the applicants the total amount of EURO 3,000 on an ex gratia basis; 2.   The applicants undertake to withdraw their application to the Court and declare, subject to the fulfilment of what is stated under (1), they have no further claims against the State of the Netherlands based on the facts of the application filed by them and therefore will not take further legal actions on this matter before national courts or international tribunals; This settlement can in no way be interpreted as a recognition on behalf of the Government that a violation of the provisions of the Convention invoked by the applicants has occurred. This settlement will constitute the final resolution of the case. The Government and the applicants further undertake not to request the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber under Article 43, paragraph 1, of the Convention.” Also on 21 April 2004 the applicants' representative informed the Court that the applicants wished to withdraw their application. The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). It considers that in these circumstances the application to the case of Article   29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued and the case struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   T.L. Early   J.-P. Costa Deputy Registrar   President