CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 décembre 1996

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .s49A78FE0 { width:26.55pt; display:inline-block } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 December 1996 Terra Woningen B.V. v. the Netherlands - 20641/92 Judgment 17.12.1996 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Civil rights and obligations Refusal by District Court to consider content of soil-pollution report: violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   SCOPE OF THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT Compass of case before the Court is delimited by the Commission's decision on admissibility. Conclusion : no jurisdiction to examine complaints declared inadmissible (eight votes to one). II.   ARTICLE 6 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Government's preliminary objection (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies) Government not prevented from formulating preliminary objection at the stage of Commission's examination of admissibility - estoppel. Conclusion : objection dismissed (unanimously). B.   Merits Rent-determination proceedings in question "determination of civil rights and obligations" - "tribunal" must have jurisdiction to examine all questions of fact and law relevant to the dispute before it - District Court, by holding that risk to public health or environment was "necessarily implied" by Provincial Executive's decision, deprived itself of jurisdiction to examine facts crucial to the dispute. Conclusion : violation (five votes to four). III.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Not argued that in present case violation of Article 13 might be found in the absence of a violation of Article 6 § 1. Conclusion : not necessary to consider complaint (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 50 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Damage No causal link between violation found and damage allegedly suffered. B.   Costs and expenses No award in respect of costs and expenses incurred in the domestic proceedings - award in respect of Strasbourg proceedings. Conclusion : respondent State to pay specified sum to applicant company (unanimously).   © 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