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
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy