CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 novembre 2005

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 80 November 2005 EEG-Slachthuis Verbist Izegem v. Belgium (dec.) - 60559/00 Decision 10.11.2005 [Section I] Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Equality of arms Intervention of a law in the course of a dispute with the State: inadmissible   Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 Peaceful enjoyment of possessions Intervention of a law in the course of a dispute with the State: inadmissible   In 1995 the applicant company, which is engaged in the livestock trade, brought proceedings, which were still pending when the decision was given in the present case, seeking reimbursement by the State of the contributions it had been obliged to pay into the animal health and production fund. The fund was set up by a law of 24 March 1987 and the amount of the compulsory contributions was laid down by a royal decree of 11 December 1987, subsequently amended on several occasions. However, the system was flawed from the outset, as it had not been notified in advance to the European Commission as required by the Treaty establishing the European Community (EC Treaty), which also prohibited Member States from implementing the measures planned without the Commission’s approval. The Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Communities further took the view that the system was in breach of the EC Treaty, as the compulsory contributions were payable also in respect of imported animals, although they were used exclusively to finance assistance to domestic producers. As a result, the legislature amended the system at the end of 1994. A law enacted on 21 December 1994 confirmed, with retroactive effect from 1 January 1988 (the date of entry into force of the decree of 11 December 1987), the various royal decrees relating to compulsory contributions to the fund in respect of domestic animals. With regard to imported animals, it ordered the repayment, subject to certain conditions, of the compulsory contributions paid since 1988. The draft reforms were not notified to the European Commission either. The applicant, taking the view that the contributions it had been obliged to pay between 1988 and 1994 had been in breach of the EC Treaty, instituted proceedings against the State seeking repayment in full. While the proceedings were pending, the legal situation was altered. A law enacted on 23 March 1998 replaced the animal health and production fund with a budgetary fund for the health and quality of animals and animal products and re‑established a statutory basis for the contributions previously payable on domestic animals, with retroactive effect. Like the 1994 law, it provided for the repayment of contributions paid since 1988 in respect of imported animals; this time, however, the requirement to inform the European Commission was met, and the latter gave its go-ahead. The applicant applied unsuccessfully to the Administrative Jurisdiction and Procedure Court to have the 1998 law annulled. It complained before the Court about the intervention of the 1998 law during the proceedings between itself and the State. Inadmissible after dismissal of the preliminary objection as to non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Article 6 § 1 – The Court had to consider whether the measures taken by the legislature to re‑establish a statutory basis for the contributions previously payable on domestic products, with retroactive effect, amounted to a violation of the equality‑of‑arms principle. The applicant had applied for repayment of its contributions in full, and the legislative validation had occurred before the judge ruled on the merits. The applicant had therefore not yet obtained a judgment recognising its right to repayment in full. As in the Building Societies case, the legislative action had been justified by the “legitimate aim” of giving effect to the original intentions of the legislature. Those had been expressed in the Law of 24 March 1987 establishing a fund to be financed in particular by compulsory contributions from private individuals and companies engaged in the production, processing, transport, preparation, sale or marketing of animals, with the amounts and arrangements for payment being laid down by royal decree. The legislature, having identified deficiencies in the royal decree, had enacted legislation in order to fill a legal vacuum. Such a move had been foreseeable and had been made on clear and compelling public-interest grounds. It had not created any particular legal uncertainty, given that the legislation was identical in content to the original royal decree. In the context of the pending proceedings there had been nothing to prevent the ordinary courts from reviewing the conformity of the new law with Community law given that, under Belgian law, both royal decrees and legislative provisions must comply with directly applicable international law. The scope of judicial review had not been substantially reduced by the fact that the royal decree had been replaced by a law, as the courts were also empowered to declare inapplicable any law found to be in breach of a rule of international law which applied directly: manifestly ill‑founded . Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – The Law of 24 March 1987 had introduced the principle of compulsory contributions and had stipulated that regulations would be adopted laying down the amounts and the detailed arrangements for payment. This had been done by means of the royal decree of 11 December 1987. However, the decree had been in breach of one of the requirements of Community law, as it had provided for the same contributions to be paid in respect of both domestic and imported products. That defect had been identified both by the Court of Justice and by the Belgian courts, which in 1994 had ordered that the sums paid under that royal decree be reimbursed. The Law of 21 December 1994, which had been enacted after those decisions, had remedied the discrimination but had still failed to meet the requirement of prior consultation of the European Commission. In the circumstances the applicant company had had, at the least, a legitimate expectation that the sums paid would be reimbursed, and had therefore had a claim amounting to a “possession”. In enacting the Law of 23 March 1998 with retroactive effect, the legislature had sought to re‑establish and reaffirm its original intention, which had been thwarted by the earlier regulatory and legislative defects. There had been clear and compelling public‑interest grounds for ensuring that the fund had the financial means to enable it to operate. The applicant company had not contradicted the assertion, made in the explanatory memorandum to the draft law, that the budgetary implications of having to repay the amounts would imperil the future funding of animal health policy. The retroactive legislative measure had not frustrated the applicant’s hopes that the State would be ordered to repay it the contributions it had paid before its entry into force. In short, the measures taken by the respondent State had not upset the balance which needed to be struck between protection of the applicant’s right to repayment of the contributions already paid and the public interest in ensuring the financing of the fund: manifestly ill-founded .   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes