CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 16 mai 1997

.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 }           In the case of De Brabandere and Others v. Belgium (1),            The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights, constituted in accordance with Article 48 para. 2 (art. 48-2) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B (2), _______________ Notes by the Registrar   1.   The case is numbered 4/1997/788/989.   The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).   The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.   2.   Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply to all cases concerning the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9). ________________            Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 20 March and 22 April 1997, and composed of the following judges:            Mr C. Russo, Chairman,          Mr A. Spielmann,          Mr J. De Meyer,   and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,            Having regard to the application against the Kingdom of Belgium lodged with the Court on 15 January 1997 by Mr Joseph De Brabandere, Mrs Cécile De Brabandere, Mrs Marie-Jeanne De Brabandere, Mrs Marguerite De Brabandere, Mrs Agnès De Brabandere, Mr André De Brabandere, Mr Hubert De Brabandere, Mrs Geneviève De Brabandere, Mr Louis De Brabandere, Mrs Claire De Brabandere, Mr Pierre De Brabandere and Mr Jean De Brabandere, all Belgian nationals except Mrs Marguerite De Brabandere, who is a French national;            Whereas Belgium has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention (art. 46)) and ratified Protocol No. 9 to the Convention (P9), Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) so as to enable a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") to refer the case to the Court;            Noting that the present case has not been referred to the Court by the Government of the respondent State or by the Government of the State of which one of the applicants is a national or by the Commission under Article 48 para. 1 (a), (b) or (d) of the Convention (art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-b, art. 48-1-d);            Having regard to the Commission's report of 4 September 1996 on the application (no. 21010/92) lodged with the Commission by the applicants on 20 November 1992;            Noting that the report was transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 3 October 1996, in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention (art. 31-2);            Whereas the applicants complained of the length of proceedings in the Belgian civil courts, to which they were parties, and alleged breaches of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1) (right of everyone to a fair hearing by a tribunal within a reasonable time), Article 14 of the Convention (art. 14) (prohibition of all forms of discrimination regarding enjoyment of the rights secured by the Convention) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) (right of every natural or legal person to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions);            Whereas, by decisions of 11 May 1994 and 18 October 1995, the Commission declared admissible only the complaints based on Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1) relating to the length of proceedings for review of the compensation paid for compulsory expropriation and to the procedure in the Court of Cassation;            Whereas the applicants, in specifying the object of their application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, requested the Court to hold that there had been breaches of Articles 6 para. 1 and 14 of the Convention (art. 6-1, art. 14) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1), to hold that "the systematic application of the Special Law of 25 July 1962 concerning the expedited procedure for compulsory purchase in the public interest constituted an abuse of law contrary to the Convention" and to award them compensation for the damage they had allegedly sustained and reimbursement of the costs they had incurred before the Belgian courts and the Convention institutions;            Having regard to Articles 32 para. 1, 47 and 48 of the Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47, art. 48) and Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,   1.        Observes that, pursuant to Article 32 para. 1 of the          Convention (art. 32-1), for the Court to have jurisdiction to          deal with an application the case must be referred to it          within a period of three months from the date of transmission          of the Commission's report to the Committee of Ministers,          failing which it falls to the Committee of Ministers to          decide whether there has been a violation of the Convention;   2.        Considers that in this case that provision (art. 32-1) was          complied with, since the Commission's report was transmitted          to the Committee of Ministers on 3 October 1996 and the          application sent to the Court on 30 December 1996, that is          before expiry of the three-month period, as evidenced by the          postmark;   3.        Finds that     (a)      the case raises no serious question affecting the          interpretation or application of the Convention, as the Court          has already established case-law on the "reasonable time"          requirement in Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1)          and the requirements which must be satisfied by the procedure          in the Court of Cassation, while consideration of the other          complaints lies outside the Court's jurisdiction, as the          Commission has declared them inadmissible; and     (b)      the case does not, for any other reason, warrant          consideration by the Court as, in the event of a finding that          there has been a breach of the Convention, the          Committee of Ministers can award the applicants just          satisfaction, having regard to any proposals made by the          Commission;   4.        Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be          considered by the Court.            Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 16 May 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: Carlo RUSSO         Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD         Registrar