J.S. AND OTHERS v. THE NETHERLANDS



                      AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

      1. Application No. 14561/89      2. Application No. 14657/89

      by J.S.                          by P.B. and A.B

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      3. Application No. 15105/89      4. Application No. 15343/89

      by C.A. and W.H. VAN DEN BERG    by A.A. and E.A.

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      5. Application No. 15712/89      6. Application No. 15908/89

      by J.W. JANSEN                   by J.B. and M.B.

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      7. Application No. 15988/90      8. Application No. 16118/90

      by F.C. VAN OIRSCHOT             by Th.C.M. GIEBELS

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      9. Application No. 16513/90      10. Application No. 16583/90

      by G.J.T. WILLEMSEN              by H.P.J. SIMONS

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      11. Application No. 16843/90     12. Application No. 16896/90

      by J.O. and C.O.                 by J.S. and Th.S.

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      13. Application No. 16897/90     14. Application No. 17001/90

      by J.W. and D.W.                 by J.B.G. KLINK

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      15. Application No. 17241/90     16. Application No. 17252/90

      by F.S.                          by H. BRAAM

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      17. Application No. 17675/91     18. Application No. 17883/91

      by A.J. VERSMISSEN               by Th.B.

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      19. Application No. 18340/91     20. Application No. 18615/91

      by P.F.M. VAN DER HEIJDEN        by P.H.

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      21. Application No. 19590/92     22. Application No. 19591/92

      by C.D.                          by J.B.

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      23. Application No. 19637/92     24. Application No. 20311/92

      by L.A.M. VERHAGEN               by L.A.G. HUIJBEN

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

                      25. Application No. 22532/93

                      by E.P. and C.P.

                      against the Netherlands

      The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 7 September 1995, the following members being present:

           Mr.   H. DANELIUS, President

           Mrs.  G.H. THUNE

           MM.   G. JÖRUNDSSON

                 J.-C. SOYER

                 H.G. SCHERMERS

                 F. MARTINEZ

                 L. LOUCAIDES

                 J.-C. GEUS

                 M.A. NOWICKI

                 I. CABRAL BARRETO

                 J. MUCHA

                 D. SVÁBY

                 P. LORENZEN

           Ms.   M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

      Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

      Having regard to the 25 applications mentioned in the Appendix

to this decision;

      Having regard to:

-     the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of

      the Commission;

-     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

      9 December 1994 and the observations in reply submitted by the

      applicants on 6 April 1995 (Nos. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19,

      20, 23 and 24), 3 May 1995 (No. 25) and 30 May 1995 (Nos. 1, 3,

      4, 6, 12, 13, 18, 21 and 22);

      Having deliberated;

      Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

      The applicants are all dairy farmers, holding Dutch nationality,

and reside in the Netherlands.

      In the proceedings before the Commission the applicants mentioned

under Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 18, 21 and 22 are represented by Mr.

G.W.A. Bernards, a lawyer practising in Eindhoven. The applicants

mentioned under Nos. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23 and 24 are

represented by Mr. Th. Linssen, a lawyer practising in Tilburg. The

applicant mentioned under No. 5 is represented by Mr. J.P.M.M.

Heijkant, a lawyer practising in Dongen. The applicant mentioned under

No. 14 is represented by Mr. E.G.J. Hendriksen, a lawyer practising in

Zwolle. The applicant mentioned under No. 16 is represented by Mr. A.J.

Boonstra, a lawyer practising in Groningen. The applicants mentioned

under No. 25 are represented by Mr. J.P.E. Baakman, a legal adviser

established at Haaksbergen.

      The facts of the respective cases, as submitted by the parties,

may be summarised as follows.

a.    General background

      According to the Council Regulations (EEC) No. 856/84 and No.

857/84, implemented in the Netherlands by Ordinance no. J 1731 on the

Super Levy of 18 April 1984 (Beschikking Superheffing - hereinafter

referred to as the "1984 Ordinance"), dairy farmers are allowed to

produce a certain amount of milk, calculated on the basis of their

production capacity prior to 1 April 1984 (the "reference quantity").

For any surplus production a levy (superheffing) must be paid.

      Dairy producers who, between 1 September 1981 and 1 March 1984,

entered into investment obligations of at least 100.000 Dutch guilders

for an expansion of their cow stands by at least 25% to more than 60

may be allotted an extra reference quantity based on the capacity of

the expanded farm (Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance). Pursuant to

Section 7 of the Super Levy Ordinance for Farm Succession Undermanning

Situations (Beschikking Superheffing Bedrijfsopvolgingssituaties

Onderbezetting) of 16 May 1986 this possibility also exists in the case

of farm successions, provided that the investment obligations amount

to at least 20.000 Dutch guilders.

      Pursuant to Section 14 of the 1984 Ordinance, when dairy farm

land was sold between 1 April 1984 and 31 March 1985, the entitlement

to a reference quantity would be diminished correspondingly.

      An extra reference quantity may be allotted in exceptional cases

not explicitly provided for in the 1984 Ordinance (Section 19). For

instance this may apply in cases where, due to "force majeure", the

milk production in a reference year was so low that it cannot be

considered as being representative of the "normal" production of the

dairy farm, or in cases where it is established that dairy farm land

has been acquired by way of a notarial contract of sale before 1 April

1984 without, however, being formally inscribed in the relevant public

registers before that date, but which has been formally inscribed

between 1 April 1984 and 1 April 1985.

      When, between 1 September 1981 and 1 March 1984, dairy producers

had entered into investment obligations for an amount between 50.000

and 100.000 Dutch guilders for a replacement or an expansion of their

cow stands by at least 25% to more than 60, an extra reference quantity

may be allotted under Section 2 of the Additional Super Levy Ordinance

(Beschikking Aanvulling Superheffing).

      If a plot of dairy farm land is sold, a corresponding part of the

reference quantity may be transferred to the new owner under Section

7 para. 1 of the 1985 Super Levy Ordinance (Beschikking Superheffing

1985). Pursuant to Section 8 paras. 1 and 2 of the 1985 Super Levy

Ordinance such a transfer will be registered by the provincial Director

of Agriculture, Nature and Outdoor Recreation (Directeur Landbouw,

Natuur en Openluchtrecreatie) following a notification of the transfer

by the parties involved. According to Section 19 of the 1985 Super Levy

Ordinance a party may, within 30 days, file an objection

(bezwaarschrift) to the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries (Minister

van Landbouw en Visserij) against the Director's decision in respect

of the registration of the reference quantity transfer.

      Under Section 10 of the 1985 Super Levy Ordinance an extra

reference quantity may be allotted in case dairy farmers temporarily

have to interrupt their production activities as a result of a land

consolidation project.

b.    Particular circumstances of the individual cases

1.                  Application No. 14561/89 - J.S.

      The applicant was born in 1952 and resides at Veulen-Venray. On

20 June 1984 he applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of

the 1984 Ordinance. On 18 October 1984 the Director of Agriculture and

Food Supply (Directeur voor Landbouw en Voedselvoorziening) of the

province of Limburg provisionally allotted to the applicant a reference

quantity of 529.463 kilogrammes.

      However, an investigation by the General Inspection Service of

the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (Algemene Inspectiedienst,

hereinafter referred to as the "GIS") concluded that certain documents

submitted by the applicant in support of his request had been

antedated. On the basis of this finding, the Director of Agriculture

and Food Supply rejected the applicant's request for a reference

quantity on 20 August 1985. On 17 September 1985 the applicant appealed

to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal (College van Beroep voor het

Bedrijfsleven).

      On 8 October 1986 the President of the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal rejected the applicant's request for an interim measure

(voorlopige voorziening).

      Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was

represented by a lawyer and in which the parties and a number of

witnesses were heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the

applicant's appeal on 3 August 1988, finding that it had not been

established that the applicant had entered into investment obligations

before 1 March 1984.

2.             Application No. 14657/89 - P.B. and A.B.

      The first applicant was born in 1921. He died pending the

proceedings before the Commission. The second applicant, born in 1962,

resides in Dongen. As from 1 January 1984, until the first applicant's

death, they formed a partnership (maatschap). On 8 June 1984 they

applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of the 1984

Ordinance.

      On 14 September 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply

of the province of Noord-Brabant provisionally allotted to them a

reference quantity of 233.490 kilogrammes, against which decision the

applicants filed an objection (bezwaarschrift) on 9 October 1984.

      On 6 November 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply

partially granted the applicants' request for a reference quantity.

They were allotted a reference quantity of 233.490 kilogrammes. They

filed an objection against this decision with the Minister of

Agriculture and Fisheries (Minister van Landbouw en Visserij,

hereinafter referred to as the "Minister") on 14 November 1984.

      On 23 August 1985, the Minister rejected the applicant's

objection against the decision of 6 November 1984 as ill-founded. On

2 September 1985 the applicants appealed to the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal.

      On 2 June 1986 the President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal

rejected the applicants' request for an interim measure (voorlopige

voorziening).

      Following a hearing on 1 July 1986 during which the parties and

a witness were heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal, on 2 July 1986,

ordered an investigation by the GIS concerning the investment

obligations entered into by the applicants. The GIS submitted its

findings on 9 September 1986.

      On 1 June 1988 the Industrial Appeals Tribunal quashed the

Minister's decision, finding that in the challenged decision an

incorrect factual assumption in respect of the applicants' partnership

had been made. Consequently, it ordered the Minister to take a new

decision with due regard to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal's findings.

On 20 June 1988, pursuant to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal's

decision, the Minister fixed a new reference quantity. The applicant

filed an appeal against this decision with the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal.

      Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicants were

represented by a lawyer and in which the parties were heard, the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicants' appeal on

5 October 1989, holding that the merits of the appeal had already been

decided in its judgment of 20 June 1988 and that the Minister's new

decision of 20 June 1988 was in conformity with that judgment.

3.       Application No. 15105/89 - C.A. and W.H. VAN DEN BERG

      The applicants were born in 1943 and 1947 respectively and both

reside in Oploo. On 21 June 1984 they applied for a reference quantity

under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance.

      On 21 September 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply

of the province of Noord-Brabant rejected the applicants' request.

      On 10 October 1984 the applicants filed an objection with the

Minister, who rejected it as ill-founded on 21 March 1985. The

applicants, represented by their lawyer, appealed to the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal on 19 April 1985.

      On 24 August 1988 the President of the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal rejected their appeal as manifestly ill-founded because it did

not appear that the applicants had entered into investment obligations

within the prescribed period between 1 September 1981 and 1 March 1984.

The President based this finding on the fact that on their application

form of 21 June 1984, the applicants had stated that the investment

obligations, upon which their application was based, were entered into

on 6 May 1981.

      After having heard the applicants in chambers (raadkamer), the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicants' objection against

the President's decision on 7 November 1988 as ill-founded.

4.             Application No. 15343/89 - A.A. and E.A.

      The applicants were born in 1926 and 1958 respectively and both

reside in Haps. On 26 June 1984 they applied for a reference quantity

under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance.

      On 7 December 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply

of the province of Noord-Brabant allotted to them a reference quantity

of 432.245 kilogrammes, which was less than they had applied for.

      On 22 December 1984 the applicants filed an objection with the

Minister, who rejected it as ill-founded on 12 April 1985, holding that

the applicants had not proven that, at the time they entered into their

investment obligations, they had planned an extension of the number of

cow stands on their farm rather than a partial replacement of old cow

stands. On 6 May 1985 the applicants appealed to the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal.

      Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicants were

represented by a lawyer and in which the parties and a witness were

heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicants' appeal

on 2 February 1989, holding that the applicants had not proven that

their investment obligations only concerned an extension of the cow

stands on their farm. The Industrial Appeals Tribunal found no basis

for the finding that the applicants had also intended to keep the old

cow stands in use when they had decided to enter into investment

obligations.

5.              Application No. 15712/89 - J.W. JANSEN

      The applicant was born in 1936 and resides in Dongen. On

25 June 1984 he applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of

the 1984 Ordinance. On 19 October 1984 the Director of Agriculture and

Food Supply of the province of Noord-Brabant rejected his request.

      On 30 October 1984 the applicant filed an objection with the

Minister, who rejected it as ill-founded on 11 March 1986, holding that

it had appeared from an GIS investigation that the investment

obligations had been contracted after 1 March 1984.

      On 26 March 1986 the applicant appealed to the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal.  On 24 August 1988 the President of the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal rejected the appeal, holding that the applicant had not proved

that the investment obligations had been entered into before

1 March 1984. The applicant subsequently filed an objection against the

President's decision.

      On 18 November 1988 the Registry of the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal informed the applicant that, as the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal saw no reason to declare the applicant's objection against the

President's decision ill-founded or inadmissible, the President's

decision was void, and that the applicant's appeal against the

Minister's decision of 11 March 1986 would be determined by the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

      Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was

represented by a lawyer and in which the parties and a witness were

heard on 25 January 1989, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the

applicant's appeal on 10 May 1989. It found that it had been

established that a written confirmation of a construction order dated

19 April 1983 had in fact only been drafted in May/June 1984 and had

been antedated upon the applicant's request. It held that the applicant

had failed to sufficiently prove, either by written documents or by the

examination of a witness, that he had entered into investment

obligations before 1 March 1984.

6.             Application No. 15908/89 - J.B. and M.B.

      The applicants were both born in 1927 and both reside in Wanroy.

On 28 June 1984 they applied for a reference quantity under Section 11

of the 1984 Ordinance. On 21 September 1984 the Director of Agriculture

and Food Supply of the province of Noord-Brabant provisionally allotted

to them a reference quantity of 455.664 kilogrammes.

      However, in a subsequent investigation by the GIS it was found

that documents submitted by the applicants had been antedated and that

they had not entered into investment obligations before 1 March 1984.

On 12 May 1986, on the basis of the GIS findings, the Director of

Agriculture and Food Supply withdrew his provisionally allotted

reference quantity and rejected the applicants' request for a reference

quantity. On 10 June 1986 the applicants' lawyer filed an appeal to the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

      On 13 January 1989 the President of the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal declared the applicants' appeal ill-founded, holding that the

applicants had failed to prove that they had entered into investment

obligations between 1 September 1981 and 1 March 1984. On

26 January 1989 the applicants filed an objection against the

President's decision.

      Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicants were

represented by a lawyer and in which the parties and a witness were

heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicants' appeal

against the decision of 12 May 1986. It noted, inter alia, that both

the applicants and the witness heard had confirmed that the date of

18 January 1984 on the submitted construction contract was incorrect.

It held that the applicants had failed plausibly to show that they had

entered into investment obligations before 1 March 1984.

7.           Application No. 15988/90 - F.C. VAN OIRSCHOT

      The applicant was born in 1932 and resides in Boxtel. On

7 June 1984 he applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of the

1984 Ordinance. On 14 September 1984 the Director of Agriculture and

Food Supply of the province of Noord-Brabant rejected the applicant's

request, considering that the applicant had not entered into investment

obligations between the prescribed period and that the extension of the

number of cow stands was less than the prescribed 25%.

      On 9 October 1984 the applicant filed an objection with the

Minister, who rejected it on 30 July 1985 as ill-founded. On

21 August 1985 the applicant appealed to the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal.

      Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was

represented by a lawyer and in which the parties were heard on

19 April 1989, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's

appeal on 7 June 1989. It held that the applicant had not complied with

the requirements of Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance in that the

extension of the number of cow stands was less than 25%.

8.            Application No. 16118/90 - Th.C.M. GIEBELS

      The applicant was born in 1949 and resides in Mierlo. On

24 June 1984 he applied for a reference quantity under Section 19 of

the 1984 Ordinance. The Minister rejected the applicant's request on

2 January 1985.

      On 9 June 1986 the applicant submitted a new application for a

reference quantity. The second application was based on Section 2 of

the Additional Super Levy Ordinance. On 30 September 1986 the Director

of Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Noord-Brabant issued

favourable advice.

      However, on 19 December 1986 the Minister rejected the request,

holding that it had not been established that the investment

obligations in respect of the applicant's cow stands had been entered

into between 1 September 1981 and 1 March 1984. The applicant appealed

to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal on 15 January 1987.

      On 16 March 1987 the President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal

rejected the applicant's request for an interim measure.

      Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was

represented by a lawyer and after having heard the parties on two

occasions, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the appeal on

15 November 1989. It held that the Minister has correctly refused to

allot the applicant a reference quantity on the basis of Section 2

para. 1 of the Additional Super Levy Ordinance.

9.            Application No. 16513/90 - G.J.T. WILLEMSEN

      The applicant was born in 1930 and resides in Overloon. On

6 February 1986 the applicant applied for a reference quantity under

Section 10 of the Super Levy Ordinance 1985 on the basis of the

consolidation of his farm.

      On 20 October 1985 the Director of the Land Development

Department (Landinrichtingsdienst) initially issued a favourable

opinion. However, on 8 December 1986, following further investigation

into the applicant's situation, he changed his opinion on the ground

that the applicant had not relocated his activities in the framework

of the land consolidation and had not produced any milk since 1976.

      On 31 December 1986 the Minister rejected the applicant's request

for a reference quantity under Section 10 of the 1985 Super Levy

Ordinance, holding that the applicant had not produced any milk since

1975. On 23 January 1987 the applicant filed an appeal with the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

      On 18 March 1988 the President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal

rejected the applicant's request for an interim measure.

      Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was

represented by a lawyer and in which the parties were heard on two

occasions, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's

appeal on 10 January 1990. It held, inter alia, that the 1985 Super

Levy Ordinance contained no basis for an allotment of a reference

quantity to the applicant.

10.            Application No. 16583/90 - H.P.J. SIMONS

      The applicant was born in 1932 and resides in Haaren. On

14 June 1984 the applicant applied for a reference quantity under

Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance.

      On 31 August 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of

the province of Noord-Brabant allotted to the applicant a reference

quantity of 366.378 kilogrammes, which was less than the applicant had

applied for.

      On 26 September 1984 the applicant filed an objection against the

decision of 31 August 1984 with the Minister, who rejected it as ill-

founded on 13 May 1985. The Minister did not find it established that

the applicant had intended to continue to use a number of old cow

stands when he entered into investment obligations. On 20 May 1985 the

applicant appealed to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

      On 29 November 1986 he requested the Tribunal to order an interim

measure to the effect that no super levy be collected pending the

outcome of the proceedings and to be reimbursed should it be collected.

On 22 January 1987 the President of the Tribunal granted this interim

measure, provisionally holding that the applicant's request for a

reference quantity was justified.

      On 4 April 1989 the Minister amended his decision of 13 May 1985

insofar as the number of cow stands on the applicant's farm was fixed

at 78, not 88 as had been indicated in the previous decision. In view

of the amended decision of the Minister, the applicant supplemented his

appeal to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal on 12 April 1989.

      Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was

represented by a lawyer and in which the parties and two witnesses were

heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal

on 6 December 1989. It held, inter alia, that the Minister's

determination of the number of cow stands for the purposes of Section

11 of the 1984 Ordinance was correct and that his decision was properly

reasoned.

11.            Application No. 16843/90 - J.O. and C.O.

      The applicants were born in 1952 and 1954 respectively and both

reside in Venhorst. The applicants form a partnership. On 25 June 1984

they applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of the 1984

Ordinance.

      On 31 October 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply

of the province of Noord-Brabant rejected the applicants' request,

holding that the applicants' investments were less than the required

100.000 Dutch guilders and that their extension of the number of cow

stands was less than the required 25%. On 16 November 1984 the

applicants filed an objection with the Minister, who rejected it on

5 July 1985. On 30 July 1985 the applicants filed an appeal with the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

      By letter of 24 April 1989 the Minister informed the applicants

that in the decision of 5 July 1985 an error had been made in respect

of the number of cow stands on the applicants' farm, but that in any

event the applicants had not complied with the investment requirements

under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance.

      Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicants were

represented by a lawyer and in which parties and a witness were heard

on 26 October 1989, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the

applicants' appeal against the Minister's decision on 16 November 1989.

It found that the applicants' investments for the purposes of Section

11 of the 1984 Ordinance only amounted to 60.000 Dutch guilders and

that, therefore, their application had been rejected on correct

grounds.

12.            Application No. 16896/90 - J.S. and Th.S.

      The applicants were born in 1931 and 1940 respectively, and

reside in Haastrecht. On 21 June 1984 the applicants applied for a

reference quantity under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance.

      On 22 March 1985 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of

the province of Zuid-Holland rejected the applicants' request, finding

that the applicants' investment obligations had been entered into after

1 March 1984, namely in May 1984.

      On 29 March 1985 the applicants filed an objection with the

Minister, who, on the basis of an investigation by the GIS confirming

the findings of the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply, rejected

the applicants' objection as ill-founded on 18 March 1986.

      On 15 April 1986 the applicants' lawyer filed an appeal to the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

      Following adversarial proceedings, the President of the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal as ill-

founded on 28 June 1989, holding that it had not been established that

the applicants had complied with the investment requirements under the

1984 Ordinance. The applicants subsequently filed an objection against

the President's decision with the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

      After having heard the applicants in chambers (raadkamer), the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal, in its decision of 25 October 1989, held

that the President had correctly rejected the appeal, that the

applicants' additional submissions did not alter this finding, and

rejected the applicants' objection against the President's decision of

28 June 1989 as ill-founded.

13.            Application No. 16897/90 - J.W. and D.W.

      The applicants were born in 1942 and 1946 respectively, and

reside in Boornzwaag. The applicants form a partnership. On

22 June 1984 the applicants applied for a reference quantity under

Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance.

      On 3 October 1984 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of

the province of Friesland rejected this request, holding that the

extension of the number of cow stands on the applicants' farm was less

than the required 25%. On 18 October 1984 the applicants filed an

objection with the Minister, who rejected it on 23 August 1985 as ill-

founded on the same ground. On 2 September 1985 the applicants filed

an appeal with the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

      On 15 June 1987 the President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal

rejected the applicants' request for an interim measure. On

20 January 1989 the President rejected the applicants' second request

for an interim measure.

      Following adversarial proceedings, in which the applicants were

represented by a lawyer and in which the parties and a witness were

heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicants' appeal

on 11 October 1989. It found that the extension of the number of cow

stands on the applicants' farm was less than the required 25%.

14.             Application No. 17001/90 - J.B.G. KLINK

      The applicant was born in 1920 and resides in Laag Zuthem. On

14 June 1984 he applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of

the 1984 Ordinance. On 9 November 1984 the Director of Agriculture and

Food Supply of the province of Overijssel provisionally allotted to the

applicant a reference quantity of 262.490 kilogrammes.

      However, on 15 August 1986, following an investigation by the

GIS, the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply rejected the

applicant's request for a reference quantity, as it had appeared that

the investment obligations had not been entered into by the applicant

before 1 March 1984. The applicant filed an appeal with the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal on 15 September 1986.

      On 8 January 1987 the President of the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal rejected the applicant's request for an interim measure.

      Following adversarial proceedings, in which the applicant was

represented by a lawyer and in which the parties and two witnesses were

heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal

on 6 December 1989. It held, inter alia, that it had been established

that the applicant had submitted an antedated confirmation of an order

for the construction of a stable, and that it had not been established

that the applicant had entered into investment obligations within the

meaning of Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance before 1 March 1984.

      Also on 6 December 1989 the Industrial Appeals Tribunal, in a

different set of proceedings, rejected an appeal lodged by the

applicant and his son in respect of a refusal to allot them a reference

quota under Section 7 of the Super Levy Ordinance for Farm Succession

Undermanning Situations. In those proceedings the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal also concluded that it had not been established that the

investment obligations had been entered into before 1 March 1984 as

required under this Ordinance.

15.                 Application No. 17241/90 - F.S.

      The applicant was born in 1966 and resides in St. Oedenrode. On

29 July 1986 he applied for a reference quantity under Section 7 of the

Super Levy Ordinance for Farm Succession Undermanning Situations.

      On 18 November 1986 the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply

of the province of Noord-Brabant rejected the applicant's request

finding, inter alia, that the extension of the number of cow stands on

the applicant's farm was less than the required 25%. On

15 December 1986 the applicant filed an objection with the Minister,

who rejected it on 30 July 1987 as ill-founded, confirming that the

extension was less than 25%.

      On 25 August 1987 the applicant appealed to the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal. On 8 November 1989 the President of the Tribunal

rejected the appeal as ill-founded, after having found that the

extension of the number of cow stands on the applicant's farm was less

than the required 25%. On 18 November 1989 the applicant filed an

objection.

      After having heard the applicant in chambers, the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal, in its decision of 13 February 1990, held that the

President had correctly rejected the appeal, that the applicant's

additionally submitted grounds were insufficient to alter this finding,

and rejected the applicant's objection against the President's decision

of 8 November 1989 as ill-founded.

16.               Application No. 17252/90 - H. BRAAM

      The applicant was born in 1945 and resides at Kiel-Windeweer. On

8 June 1984 the applicant applied for a reference quantity under

Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance. On 21 September 1984 the Director of

Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Groningen allotted to

the applicant a reference quantity of 333.874 kilogrammes, which was

less than he had applied for.

      On 9 October 1984 the applicant filed an objection with the

Minister, who rejected it on 22 May 1985 as ill-founded. The Minister

held that the applicant had not proved that, at the time he entered

into his investment obligations, he planned an extension of the number

of cow stands on his farm rather than a partial replacement of old cow

stands. On 15 June 1985 the applicant appealed to the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal.

      On 17 August 1989, following adversarial proceedings in which the

applicant was represented by a lawyer, the President of the Tribunal

rejected the applicant's appeal as ill-founded, holding that it had

sufficiently appeared from submitted documents that the applicant, at

the time he entered into his investment obligations, had not intended

to continue to use the old cow stands in addition to the cow stands in

the new stable to be constructed. On 29 August 1989 the applicant's

lawyer filed an objection with the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

      After having heard the applicant in chambers, the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal rejected the objection as ill-founded. It held that

the President had correctly rejected the appeal, that the additionally

submitted grounds did not alter this finding, and that the applicant

had failed to submit further evidence in order to make his allegations

plausible.

17.           Application No. 17675/91 - A.J. VERSMISSEN

      The applicant was born in 1937 and resides in Borkel en Schaft.

On 24 June 1984 the applicant applied for a reference quantity under

Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance. On 5 November 1984 the Director of

Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Noord-Brabant rejected

the applicant's request, holding that it had not appeared from the

submitted evidence that the applicant had entered into investment

obligations between 1 September 1981 and 1 March 1984.

      On 22 November 1984 the applicant filed an objection with the

Minister, who rejected it on 13 June 1985 as ill-founded on the same

ground as the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply. On 8 July 1985

the applicant filed an appeal with the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

      Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was

represented by a lawyer, in which the parties and a witness were heard

and in which the Industrial Appeals Tribunal had sought and obtained

further evidence from the applicant, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal

rejected the applicant's appeal on 3 May 1990. It held that the

applicant had failed to prove that he had entered into investment

obligations between 1 September 1981 and 1 March 1984.

18.                Application No. 17883/91 - Th.B.

      The applicant was born in 1923 and resides in Meerkerk. As the

applicant's land was spread over an area in different plots, he decided

to sell some of these plots and to buy land adjacent to his own within

the framework of a land consolidation plan. These transactions were

executed between April and June 1984.

      After the applicant had reported the transactions, the Director

of Agriculture and Food Supply of the province of Zuid-Holland, by

decision of 26 August 1985, determined the applicant's reference

quantity on the basis of the new situation. Pursuant to Sections 5, 14

and 16 of the 1984 Ordinance, the Director took the respective sizes

of the plots sold and acquired by the applicant into account in his

determination. The new determination resulted in a lower reference

quantity for the applicant.

      On 18 September 1985 the applicant filed an objection with the

Minister, who rejected it on 18 February 1987 as ill-founded, and who

refused to apply Section 19 of the 1984 Ordinance in the applicant's

case. On 19 March 1987 the applicant filed an appeal with the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

      On 9 May 1989 the President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal

rejected the applicant's request for an interim measure.

      Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was

represented by a lawyer and in which the parties and a witness were

heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal

on 20 June 1990. It held that, pursuant to Section 14 of the 1984

Ordinance, the applicant's reference quantity had been correctly

reduced and that the Minister had correctly applied Section 19 of the

1984 Ordinance.

19.        Application No. 18340/91 - P.F.M. VAN DER HEIJDEN

      The applicant was born in 1952 and resides in Westerhoven. In

June 1984 the applicant applied for a reference quantity under Section

19 of the 1984 Ordinance. On 20 November 1984 the Minister rejected the

applicant's request.

      On 18 December 1984 the applicant filed an appeal with the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal. The President of the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal on 27 May 1987 as ill-founded.

      On 8 July 1987 the Registry of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal

informed the applicant that, as the Industrial Appeals Tribunal saw no

reason to declare the applicant's objection against the President's

decision ill-founded or inadmissible, the President's decision was void

and that the applicant's appeal against the Minister's decision of

20 November 1984 would be decided by the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

      Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was

represented by a lawyer and in which the parties were heard, the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal on

30 January 1990, holding that the Minister had correctly rejected the

applicant's request.

      On 27 March 1990 the applicant requested a review (herziening)

of the decision of 30 January 1990, alleging that a typing error had

been made in the date on one of the documents examined by the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal. On 18 September 1990 the President of the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the request for a revision. The

applicant's subsequent objection against this decision was rejected on

21 February 1991 by the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

20.                 Application No. 18615/91 - P.H.

      The applicant was born in 1940 and resides in Wellerlooi. On

28 June 1984 the applicant applied for a reference quantity under

Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance. Following a provisional grant on

1 October 1984, the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of the

province of Limburg, on 10 April 1985, allotted to the applicant a

reference quantity of 389.792 kilogrammes.

      On 8 August 1986 the applicant's son, who intended to take over

the farm, applied for a reference quantity under the Super Levy

Ordinance for Farm Succession Undermanning Situations.

      In the course of the examination of the son's request, the GIS

also examined the documents submitted by the applicant in 1984 in

support of his application of 28 June 1984. It appeared from this

examination that the applicant had not entered into investment

obligations before 1 March 1984. Consequently, by decision of

23 January 1989, the Minister withdrew the applicant's reference

quantity granted on 10 April 1985 with retroactive effect. In the same

decision the Minister granted the applicant's son a reference quantity

under the Super Levy Ordinance for Farm Succession Undermanning

Situations provided the take-over of the farm would occur before

1 April 1989.

      On 2 February 1989 the applicant requested the Minister to

reconsider his decision of 23 January 1989, but this request was

rejected on 5 July 1989.

      On 20 February 1989 the applicant filed an appeal against the

Minister's decision of 23 January 1989 with the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal.

      On 6 February 1990 the Minister partially revised his decision

of 23 January 1989, removing its retroactive effect. The withdrawal of

the reference quantity thus came into effect on 1 February 1989.

      On 23 February 1990 the applicant filed an objection with the

Minister and appealed to the Industrial Appeals Board against the

latter aspect of the decision. This appeal was joined to the procedure

already pending before the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

      In the meantime, criminal proceedings had been brought against

the applicant. By summons of 27 April 1989 the applicant was ordered

to appear before the Magistrate (politierechter) of the Regional Court

(Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Roermond on charges of intentional use

of forged construction contracts and building plans. Following

adversarial proceedings in which the applicant and several witnesses

were examined, the full bench of the Regional Court, to which the case

had been referred by the Magistrate, acquitted the applicant of all

charges by judgment of 22 May 1990.

      On 12 July 1990 the applicant asked the Minister to reconsider

his decision of 23 January 1989, as revised on 6 February 1990, taking

into account that he had been acquitted by the Roermond Regional Court.

This request was rejected on 27 September 1990, as the Minister held

that the outcome of criminal procedures, as such, has no bearing on

decisions taken under Section 11 of the 1984 Ordinance. The applicant

also appealed against the latter decision to the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal on 25 October 1990. This appeal was joined to the proceedings

already pending there.

      In the proceedings before the Industrial Appeals Tribunal, the

applicant had requested the President of the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal to take an interim measure on two occasions, i.e. on

19 April 1989 and 16 March 1990. The President rejected these requests

on 20 July 1989 and 26 April 1990 respectively.

      Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was

represented by a lawyer and in which the parties and eight witnesses

were heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's

various appeals on 22 January 1991. It held, inter alia, that the

applicant had failed to prove that he had entered into investment

obligations before 1 March 1984. The Industrial Appeals Tribunal also

held that the general principles of proper administration (algemene

beginselen van behoorlijk bestuur) had been respected.

21.                 Application No. 19590/92 - C.D.

      The applicant was born in 1940, resides in Oirschot, and owned

a dairy farm until early 1987, in respect of which he had been allotted

a reference quantity. In April and May 1987 the applicant sold his land

in several separate plots, together with corresponding parts of his

reference quantity, to a company with limited liability, Quotumbureau

B.V., which in turn sold the plots and the corresponding reference

quantities to others.

      The Quotumbureau B.V. and the new owners notified each

transaction involving a transfer of reference quantity to the Director

of Agriculture, Nature and Outdoor Recreation of the province of Noord-

Brabant. The Director reacted to each notification by issuing a

decision confirming the registration of the transfer of the reference

quantity as of 1 April 1987, whilst the applicant's quota was reduced

each time to a corresponding extent. The decisions were sent to both

the applicant and the new owner of the plot concerned. According to the

last decision of the Director, dated 11 February 1988, the reference

quantity of the applicant was reduced to zero. No objections against

any of the Director's decisions were filed within the prescribed 30

days.

      However, by letter of 4 September 1989, the applicant objected

before the Director of Agriculture, Nature and Outdoor Recreation that

all transfers of the reference quantity had been registered as of

1 April 1987. He submitted his contract with Quotumbureau B.V.,

pursuant to which he was entitled to use the plots and produce milk up

to 15 May 1987. However, as a consequence of the quota transfer being

fixed for 1 April 1987, he had to pay a levy for all milk produced by

him between 1 April and 15 May 1987. The applicant suggested that

apparently a mistake had been made by the Quotumbureau B.V. and

requested the Director to revise his decisions and to allot the

applicant a reference quantity for the period between 1 April and

15 May 1987.

      This request was rejected by the Minister on 10 July 1990 on the

ground that no facts or circumstances had been referred to on the basis

of which it should be assumed that the applicant could not be blamed

for not having filed an objection earlier. The Minister found no

reasons to revise the decisions taken.

      On 7 August 1990, the applicant appealed to the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal. Following adversarial proceedings in which the

applicant was represented by a lawyer and in which the parties were

heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the appeal on

10 July 1991. It noted that, given the absence of a timely objection

by the applicant against the Director's decisions, the registration

decisions had obtained the force of res judicata, and found there were

no special circumstances on the basis of which it would have been

reasonable for the Minister to revise the decisions at issue.

22.                   Application 19591/92 - J.B.

      The applicant was born in 1936 and resides in Oirschot. Until

early 1987 the applicant owned a dairy farm in respect of which a

reference quantity had been allotted to him. In April 1987, the

applicant sold his land in separate plots, together with corresponding

parts of his reference quantity, to a company, Quotumbureau B.V., which

in turn sold the plots and the corresponding reference quantities to

others.

      The Quotumbureau B.V. and the new owners notified all

transactions to the Director of Agriculture, Nature and Outdoor

Recreation of the province of Noord-Brabant. The Director was requested

to register each transaction and transfer of the corresponding

reference quantity to the new owner, as from the beginning of the levy-

year (heffingsjaar) 1987/1988.

      On 12 November 1987 the Director of Agriculture, Nature and

Outdoor Recreation informed the buyers of two plots that he would not

register the transfer they had requested. The buyers filed an objection

against this decision with the Minister.

      The Director informed the applicant on 28 January 1988 that, as

a consequence of the transactions, his reference quantity was reduced

to zero as of 1 April 1987. The applicant did not file any objection

against this decision.

      By decision of 27 December 1989, directed to the two buyers, the

applicant and another buyer, the Minister declared the first two

buyers' respective appeals founded, annulled the initial refusal of the

Director and ordered the registration of the transfer of the reference

quantity as from 1 April 1987.

      On 25 January 1990 the applicant filed an appeal with the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal against the Minister's decision in respect

of the date of the transfer of the reference quantity. He submitted his

contract with the Quotumbureau B.V., according to which he was entitled

to use the plots and produce milk up to 15 May 1987. However, as a

consequence of the reference quantity transfer being fixed for

1 April 1987, he had to pay a levy for all milk produced by him between

1 April and 15 May 1987. The applicant suggested that apparently a

mistake had been made by the Quotumbureau B.V.. The applicant requested

the Tribunal partially to quash the Minister's decision of

27 December 1989 and order that, for the levy-year 1987/1988, a part

of the reference quantity remain registered in the applicant's name.

      Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was

represented by a lawyer and in which the parties were heard, the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal on

10 July 1991. It noted that, although according to the terms in the

applicant's contract with the Quotumbureau B.V. of 13 April 1987 the

applicant should be entitled to deliver milk until 15 May 1987, the

terms of a subsequent notarial agreement of 24 April 1987 between the

applicant and the Quotumbureau B.V. stipulates that the applicant's

reference quantity was to be transferred as from the beginning of the

levy-year 1987/1988. Consequently, it concluded that the Minister's

decision had been taken in accordance with the contract between the

Quotumbureau B.V. and the applicant as stated in the notarial

agreement.

23.           Application No. 19637/92 - L.A.M. VERHAGEN

      The applicant was born in 1933 and resides in Son. On

10 June 1984 he applied for a reference quantity under Section 11 of

the 1984 Ordinance. Following a provisional grant on 9 October 1984 of

223.544 kilogrammes, the Director of Agriculture and Food Supply of the

province of Noord-Brabant granted the applicant a reference quantity

on 12 March 1985.

      Following the applicant's objection against both the provisional

and the final decision of the Director, the Minister annulled the

Director's decision on 5 August 1986, as it had appeared from a GIS

investigation of the documents submitted by the applicant in June 1984

that the applicant had not entered into investment obligations between

1 September 1981 and 1 March 1984. However, a certain reference

quantity could be granted to the applicant under Section 11 of the 1984

Ordinance on another basis, i.e. the applicant's acquisition of a farm

with 28 cow stands. The Minister therefore ordered a new determination

of the applicant's reference quantity. On 1 September 1986 the

applicant filed an appeal against the Minister's decision with the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal.     On 17 February 1987, on the basis of

information submitted by the applicant in the course of the proceedings

before the Industrial Appeals Tribunal, the Minister revised his

decision of 5 August 1986 and held that the applicant did not fulfil

the requirements for a reference quantity under Section 11 of the 1984

Ordinance, as the 28 cow stands were smaller than the required minimum

breadth of 1,10 metres. On 16 March 1987 the applicant filed an appeal

against the decision of 17 February 1987 with the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal, which was joined to the proceedings already pending.

      In the meantime, criminal proceedings had been brought against

the applicant. By summons of 20 February 1987 the applicant was ordered

to appear before the Magistrate of the 's-Hertogenbosch Regional Court

on charges of intentional use of a forged construction contract in

connection with his application for a reference quantity. By judgment

of 23 March 1988, the Magistrate acquitted the applicant of the charges

against him.

      Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was

represented by a lawyer and in which the parties and a witness were

heard, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeals

on 14 December 1988. It held, inter alia, that the applicant had failed

plausibly to show that he had entered into investment obligations

before 1 March 1984. It also held that the Minister had taken his

decision of 17 February 1987 on correct grounds.

      On 29 December 1988 the applicant requested the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal to revise (herziening) its decision of

14 December 1988. On 13 November 1990 the President of the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant's request. His subsequent

objection against the President's decision of 13 November 1990 was

rejected by the Industrial Appeals Tribunal on 31 July 1991.

24.            Application No. 20311/92 - L.A.G. HUIJBEN

      The applicant was born in 1963 and resides in Odiliapeel. Since

1 January 1984, the applicant has exploited a dairy farm in partnership

with his father. On 18 July 1986 the applicant applied for a reference

quantity under the Super Levy Ordinance for Farm Succession

Undermanning Situations, as he intended to take over the dairy farm.

Following a provisional grant of the applicant's request, the Director

of Agriculture, Nature and Outdoor Recreation of the province of Noord-

Brabant, on 17 July 1987, allotted to the applicant a reference

quantity of 279.391 kilogrammes, on condition that the applicant would

take over the farm before 1 April 1989.

      On 31 March 1989, the applicant informed the Director of

Agriculture, Nature and Outdoor Recreation that the take-over had taken

place. By letter of 3 October 1989 the Director requested additional

information, as it did not appear from the submitted documents that,

in respect of the take-over, the applicant had complied with all

requirements. The applicant replied by letter of 12 October 1989.

      By decision of 9 November 1989 the Director withdrew the

reference quantity allotted to the applicant because, from the

information and documents submitted, it appeared that the take-over had

not taken place in accordance with the provisions of the Super Levy

Ordinance for Farm Succession Undermanning Situations. On

30 November 1989 the applicant filed an objection with the Minister,

who rejected it on 16 July 1990, holding that the applicant did not

qualify for a reference quantity under that Ordinance. On

10 August 1990 the applicant filed an appeal against the Minister's

decision with the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

      Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicant was

represented by a lawyer and in which the parties were heard on

27 February 1991 and on 11 September 1991, the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal rejected the applicant's appeal on 30 October 1991. It found,

inter alia, that the applicant had not fully taken over his father's

farm and that thus the conditions under the Super Levy Ordinance for

Farm Succession Undermanning Situations had not been met. It further

held that the Minister had correctly applied and interpreted the

relevant rules of the Ordinance at issue.

25.            Application No. 22532/93 - E.P. and C.P.

      The applicants were born in 1965 and 1967 respectively, and

reside in Weerselo. Since 1986, the applicants have run the dairy farm

of their father, to whom a reference quantity had been allocated under

the 1984 Ordinance. As the applicants intended to take over their

father's farm, they requested a reference quantity on 25 July 1986

under the Super Levy Ordinance for Farm Succession Undermanning

Situations. In view of this take-over, the applicants established a

partnership in 1988.

      On 9 June 1987, the Director of Agriculture, Nature and Outdoor

Recreation of the province of Overijssel allotted to the applicants a

reference quantity under the Super Levy Ordinance for Farm Succession

Undermanning Situations on condition that the take-over would take

place before 1 April 1989.

      On 10 October 1989 the Director of Agriculture, Nature and

Outdoor Recreation withdrew the quota allotted on 9 June 1987, as the

applicants had failed to submit sufficient evidence that they had in

fact taken over their father's farm before 1 April 1989. On

7 November 1989 the applicants filed an objection with the Minister.

The objection did not contain any grounds.

      The Minister rejected the applicants' objection on

23 October 1991. Although the applicants had failed to submit any

grounds for their objection, the Minister examined the Director's

decision of 10 October 1989 ex officio. The applicants filed an appeal

against the Minister's decision with the Industrial Appeals Tribunal

on 21 November 1991. Their grounds of appeal were submitted on

20 December 1991.

      Following adversarial proceedings in which the applicants were

represented by a lawyer and in which the parties were heard on

3 March 1993, the Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicants'

appeal on 14 April 1993. It found, inter alia, that the applicants had

not taken over the farm before 1 April 1989, despite the fact that they

had been repeatedly informed that non-compliance with this condition

could affect their entitlement to a reference quantity under the Super

Levy Ordinance for Farm Succession Undermanning Situations. The

Industrial Appeals Tribunal also rejected the applicants' argument that

this failure was caused by extraordinary circumstances.

c.    Relevant domestic law and practice

      Pursuant to Section 46 of the Agriculture Act (Landbouwwet), an

appeal against a decision by the Minister concerning, inter alia, the

allocation of a reference quantity can be filed with the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal, a judicial body set up under the Industrial

Jurisdiction Act (Wet Administratieve Rechtspraak Bedrijfsorganisatie)

of 16 September 1954. No further appeal lies against a decision of the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

      The Tribunal judges are appointed for life by the Crown and must

have the same qualifications as Court of Appeal judges (Section 9 of

the Industrial Appeals Act). They take the same oath and receive the

same salary as Court of Appeal judges and are subject to the same rules

and procedure as regards supervision and dismissal (Sections 11 and 12

of the Industrial Appeals Act). They may not have any other official

position, nor may they hold any position in private enterprise or in

any association of employers or employees (Section 10 of the Industrial

Appeals Act).

      The proceedings before the Industrial Appeals Tribunal are public

and normally comprise both written and oral proceedings (Sections 29ff.

of the Industrial Appeals Act). However, if the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal is not competent or when, in view of the constant case-law of

the Industrial Appeals Tribunal, an appeal is manifestly inadmissible

or ill-founded, the President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal, in

a reasoned decision pronounced in public, can declare the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal not competent in the matter, or declare the appeal

inadmissible or unfounded without a further examination by the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal (Section 37 of the Industrial Appeals Act).

An appellant may lodge an objection against this decision with the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal, which will determine the objection after

having heard the appellant concerned (Section 38 of the Industrial

Appeals Act). It can then either reject the objection, or decide to

decide on the appeal itself. In the latter case the President's

decision becomes null and void.

      Pursuant to Section 51 of the Industrial Appeals Act, both

parties to proceedings before the Industrial Appeals Tribunal, i.e. the

Government body and the appellant, may alter their claim or their

defence and the grounds advanced in support, until the close of the

hearing, unless the Industrial Appeals Tribunal considers that such a

change places the opponent at an unreasonable disadvantage.

      Under Section 65 of the Industrial Appeals Act an appellant can

request the President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal to take

interim measures. Such a request can be made both before and after

filing an appeal on the merits. The President must give a decision as

soon as possible, after having heard the Government body concerned, or

at least after having offered it the opportunity to be heard.

      The Industrial Appeals Tribunal is competent to review acts and

decisions of a socio-economic nature for compliance with legislation

of a general nature and the general principles of proper

administration, in order to verify whether there had been any abuse of

authority and to determine whether, in weighing up the interests at

stake, the Government body concerned had acted reasonably in deciding

as it had.

      It may overrule the challenged decision and provide for the

consequences of such a reversal. In particular, it may order the

Government body concerned to make, retract or alter a decision, or to

act or refrain from acting in a certain way. Its judgment might include

an order to pay a penalty in the event of non-compliance (Section 58

of the Industrial Appeals Act). The Industrial Appeals Tribunal can

also order a Government body to pay compensation for any damage

suffered by the appellant as a result of the decision or act in

question (Section 60 of the Industrial Appeals Act). To the extent that

its judgment orders payment of a sum of money, it can be executed in

accordance with the rules pertaining to the execution of judgments of

the civil courts (Section 62 of the Industrial Appeals Act).

      Sections 74 and 75 para. 1 of the Industrial Appeals Act provide

as follows:

                              Section 74

      "1.  If, in Our opinion the consequences of a judgment

      [i.e. of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal] are contrary to

      the general interest, We may, on the recommendation of

      those of Our ministers whom it concerns, decide that it

      shall not be followed or shall not be followed in its

      entirety.

      2.   Pending the taking of a decision under the preceding

      paragraph, We may, on the recommendation of those of Our

      ministers whom it concerns, suspend the judgment for a

      length of time to be determined by Us. Even after

      prolongation, suspension may not be longer than one year.

      3.   A decision as referred to in the first paragraph may

      only be taken within two months of the judgment or, if the

      judgment is suspended within that period, within the length

      of time determined for the suspension. A decision as

      referred to in the second paragraph may only be taken

      within two months of the judgment.

      4.   Our decisions shall be published in the Official

      Bulletin.

      5.   The first two paragraphs shall not apply insofar as

      the judgment awards compensation or partial compensation,

      or orders the payment of costs. ...".

                           Section 75 para.1

      "If We decide that the judgment shall not be followed or

      shall not be followed in its entirety, the Industrial

      Appeals Tribunal may, at the request of the person

      concerned, retry the case taking due notice of Our

      decision, or order the Government body concerned to pay

      compensation for all or part of the damage suffered by the

      appellant as a consequence of the fact that the judgment is

      not followed or not followed in its entirety."

      The expressions "We", Our" and "Us" in the above sections refer

to the fact that the decisions under Section 74 were to take the form

of a Royal Decree (Koninklijk Besluit), a decree signed by the Queen

and the responsible Minister (the "Crown"). As such a Decree could only

be adopted on the initiative and under the political responsibility of

a Minister, it was effectively the Minister who had the power to issue

a decision under Section 74 paras. 1 and 2 of the Industrial Appeals

Act.  No use was ever made of the powers under Sections 74 and 75.

      On 1 January 1994 the General Administrative Law Act (Algemene

Wet Bestuursrecht) entered into force, laying down new uniform rules

of administrative law procedure. On that same date the Industrial

Appeals Act was replaced by the Industrial Organisation Administrative

Law Act (Wet Bestuursrechtspraak Bedrijfsorganisatie). Under Section

19 of that Act, the new uniform rules laid down in the General

Administrative Law Act also govern the procedure before the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal.

      There is no provision in either the General Administrative Law

Act or the Industrial Organisation Administrative Law Act empowering

any executive authority to interfere with the binding force of a

judgment.

COMPLAINTS

1.    All applicants complain that they did not have access to an

independent tribunal for the determination of their civil rights, as

the Industrial Appeals Tribunal could not be regarded as an independent

tribunal within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention,

given the Minister's previous powers under Section 74 of the Industrial

Appeals Act.

2.    The applicants mentioned under Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,

14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23 also complain that in the determination

of their civil rights they did not receive a fair hearing as required

by Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

      In particular:

-     The applicants mentioned under Nos. 3, 12 and 16 complain that

the Industrial Appeals Tribunal, following its President's rejection

of their appeal, failed to examine the merits of their appeals.

-     The applicants mentioned under Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17,

19, 20 and 23 complain that the Industrial Appeals Tribunal incorrectly

assessed the evidence before it and in certain cases failed to

sufficiently reason its findings in light of the evidence submitted by

the appellants.

-     Finally, the applicants mentioned under Nos. 8, 10 and 11

complain that the principle of "equality of arms" has been violated

because, whilst they were required under Section 6 para. 2 of the 1984

Ordinance to produce all their arguments and evidence at the outset,

the Minister could change his arguments or amend his decision to suit

his position as the case evolved.

3.    The applicants mentioned under Nos. 5, 7, 19, 24 and 25 complain

under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that their civil rights have

not been determined within a reasonable time.

4.    The applicant mentioned under No. 20 complains under Article 6

para. 1 of the Convention that no appeal lies against a judgment of the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

5.    The applicants mentioned under Nos. 1, 6, 13 and 18 also complain

that the proceedings to which they were a party were contrary to

Article 6 para. 2 of the Convention.

6.    The applicants mentioned under No. 25 complain under Article 13

of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1,

that they had no effective remedy in respect of the determination of

their request for a reference quantity.

7.    The applicants mentioned under No. 25 finally complain that the

proceedings on their request for a reference quantity constituted

mental torture contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, and violated

Articles 7 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political

Rights, Article 3 paras. 2 and 3 of the EEC Council Regulation no.

857/84, and Section 43 of the Statute of the Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Statuut voor het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden).

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

      The present applications were introduced on different dates

between 23 January 1987 and 30 June 1993. They were registered on

different dates between 20 January 1989 and 26 August 1993.

      On 1 April 1992 the Commission decided to communicate the

applications mentioned under Nos. 1-20 to the respondent Government,

pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure without, at

that time, requesting the Government to submit observations. The

applications were adjourned pending another case on milk quotas, namely

Application No. 16034/90, Van de Hurk v. the Netherlands, which was

subsequently referred to the European Court of Human Rights.

Similar procedural decisions were taken in the other applications:

      - on 12 January 1993 in the applications mentioned under Nos. 21-

      24; and

      - on 2 March 1994 in the application mentioned under No. 25.

      The European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the

Van de Hurk case on 19 April 1994 (Eur. Court H.R., Van de Hurk

judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288).

      On 18 May 1994 the Commission decided to join the applications

in three groups, i.e. the applications mentioned under Nos. 1, 2, 3,

4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 23, 24 and 25, the

applications mentioned under Nos. 7, 17 and 19, and the applications

mentioned under Nos. 21 and 22. It further decided to request the

parties to submit their observations on the admissibility and merits

of the applications in the light of the Van de Hurk judgment.

      The Government's written observations were submitted on 9

December 1994, after an extension of the time-limit fixed for that

purpose.

      The applicants mentioned under Nos. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17,

19, 20, 23 and 24 submitted their observations in reply on 6 April

1995, after an extension of the time-limit. The applicants mentioned

under No. 25 replied on 3 May 1995, after an extension of the time-

limit. The applicants mentioned under Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 18, 21

and 22 submitted their observations in reply on 30 May 1995, also after

an extension of the time-limit. The applicant mentioned under No. 16

submitted his observations in reply on 23 June 1995, after the expiry

of the time-limit. The applicants mentioned under Nos. 5 and 14 did not

submit any observations in reply.

THE LAW

1.    General

      All applicants complain that, in view of the Minister's power

under Section 74 of the Industrial Appeals Act, they did not have

access to an independent tribunal, within the meaning of Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, for a determination of the amount

of milk they were allowed to produce, as fixed by a reference quantity.

      The applicants mentioned under Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,

14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 23 also complain, on several grounds, that

in the determination of their civil rights they did not receive a fair

hearing as required by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

      The applicants mentioned under Nos. 5, 7, 19, 24 and 25 further

complain under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention that

their civil rights have not been determined within a reasonable time.

      The applicant mentioned under No. 20 complains under Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention that no appeal lies against a

judgment of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

      Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, insofar as

relevant, reads:

      "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ...,

      everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a

      reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal

      established by law. ...".

2.    As regards Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention

      The Government submit in the first place that, even assuming that

Section 74 of the Industrial Appeals Act is contrary to Article 6

(Art. 6) of the Convention, the applicants cannot claim to be victims

of the existence of this statutory provision, as this provision has

never been applied. The Government further submit that there is no

indication that the mere existence of the Crown's powers under Section

74 had any influence on the way the Industrial Appeals Tribunal handled

and decided the cases which came before it. They refer in this respect

to the finding of the European Court of Human Rights on this point in

its judgment in the similar case of Van de Hurk (Eur. Court. H.R., Van

de Hurk judgment of 19 April 1994, Series A no. 288, p. 17, para. 47).

      The applicants, equally referring to the finding by the European

Court of Human Rights in the Van de Hurk case of a violation of Article

6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1), refute the Government's argument as regards the

question whether they can claim to be victims within the meaning of

Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention.

      The Commission recalls that in the Van de Hurk judgment against

the Netherlands the Court held that, although Section 74 of the

Industrial Appeals Act had never been applied, and although there was

no indication that this provision influenced the way in which the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal handled and decided the case before it,

this provision was still law at the time of the events complained of

and there was nothing to prevent the Crown from availing itself of its

powers under Section 74 (loc. cit., p. 16-17, paras. 47-50).

      The Commission finds no reason to take a different position in

the present applications and, therefore, accepts that the applicants

may be regarded as victims within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25)

of the Convention (cf. No. 12314/86, Dec. 6.3.89, D.R. 60 p. 172).

3.    As regards Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention

      Under Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention the Commission may

only deal with a matter within a period of six months from the date on

which the final decision was taken.

a.    As regards Application No. 18340/91 (No. 19) and Application No.

19637/92 (No. 23), the Commission notes that the applicants

unsuccessfully sought to obtain a revision of the final decisions of

the Industrial Appeals Tribunal of 30 January 1990 and 14 December 1988

respectively. Both applicants subsequently filed their applications to

the Commission, on 11 April 1991 and 16 January 1992 respectively, more

than six months after these decisions, but within six months of the

revision refusals.

      The Commission has consistently held that the refusal of a

request to reopen proceedings does not restart the running of the six

months period referred to in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention,

unless it is successful and actually results in the reopening (cf. No.

10431/83, Dec. 16.12.83, D.R. 35 p. 218 and No. 23949/94, Dec. 18.5.94,

D.R. 77-A p. 140).

      It follows that these two applications must be rejected under

Article 27 para. 3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention for failure to respect

the six months time-limit provided for in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the

Convention.

b.    As regards Application No. 17001/90 (No. 14), the Commission

observes that the applicant complains of two sets of proceedings, i.e.

one set concerning a request for a reference quantity based on the 1984

Ordinance, and a second set concerning a request for a reference

quantity based on Section 7 of the Super Levy Ordinance for Farm

Succession Undermanning Situations.

      The Commission further observes that in his initial letter of 1

June 1990 the applicant only complained of the proceedings concerning

his request under the 1984 Ordinance and that the complaint on the

second set of proceedings was raised for the first time in the

application form he submitted on 18 July 1990.

      The Commission finally observes that the final decision in the

second set of proceedings concerning the applicant's request under the

Super Levy Ordinance for Farm Succession Undermanning Situations was

given on 6 December 1989 by the Industrial Appeals Tribunal. The

applicant's complaint about these proceedings has, therefore, not been

submitted within the six months time-limit laid down in Article 26

(Art. 26) of the Convention (cf. No. 10857/84, Dec. 15.7.86, D.R. 48

p. 106).

      It follows that the part of Application No. 17001/90 involving

the second set of proceedings must be rejected under Article 27 para.

3 (Art. 27-3) of the Convention.

4.    As regards Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention

a)    "Tribunal"

      Concerning the other applicants' complaint that the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal, in view of the Crown's powers under Section 74 of the

Industrial Appeals Act, cannot be regarded as a "tribunal", within the

meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention, the

Government accept the Court's finding in its Van de Hurk judgment that

Section 74 of the Industrial Appeals Act is incompatible with this

provision of the Convention.

      After a preliminary examination of the substance of the present

complaint in the light of the parties' submissions and the Court's

findings in the Van de Hurk case, the Commission considers that it

raises issues of fact and law which require an examination of the

merits. This complaint cannot, therefore, be declared inadmissible as

being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other grounds of inadmissibility have

been established.

b)    "Fair hearing"

      The applicants mentioned under Nos. 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,

14,  15, 16, 17, and 20 also complain, on several grounds, that in the

determination of their civil rights they did not receive a fair hearing

as required by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

      aa.  Applications Nos. 15105/89, 16896/90 and 17252/90

      Insofar as the applicants mentioned under Nos. 3, 12 and 16

complain that they did not receive a fair hearing because the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal, following its President's rejection of

their appeal, failed to examine the merits of their appeals, the

Commission notes that the President of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal

rejected the applicants' respective appeals after an examination of the

merits. The applicants subsequently filed an objection against the

President's decisions, which was rejected as ill-founded by the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal after it had heard the applicants.

      The Commission recalls that Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention does not lay down rules for the way in which proceedings

before national courts are organised, which is primarily a matter for

regulation under national law (cf. No. 13926/88, Dec. 4.10.90, D.R. 66

p. 209).

      The Commission finds that, in principle, no issue arises under

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention when the merits of an

appeal are decided by the President or a single member of the competent

appeal court on the basis of that court's constant case-law rather than

by its full bench. Moreover, the Commission notes that, before the

Industrial Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicants' objection to the

President's decision, it had heard the applicants. In these

circumstances the Commission finds no indication that in this respect

the applicants were deprived of a fair hearing within the meaning of

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

      It follows that this complaint must be rejected as being

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

      bb.  Applications Nos. 15712/89, 15988/90, 16118/90, 16513/90,

      16843/90, 17001/90, 17241/90, 17675/91 and 18615/91

      The applicants mentioned under Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17,

and 20 complain that the Industrial Appeals Tribunal incorrectly

assessed the evidence before it and in certain cases failed to

sufficiently reason its findings in light of the evidence submitted by

the appellants.

      As regards the judicial decisions in the respective applications,

the Commission recalls that, in accordance with Article 19 (Art. 19)

of the Convention, its only task is to ensure the observance of the

obligations undertaken by the Parties to the Convention. In particular

it is not competent to deal with a complaint alleging that errors of

law or fact have been committed by domestic courts, except where it

considers that such errors might have involved a possible violation of

any of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention. The

Commission refers, on this point, to its constant case-law (cf. No.

21283/93, Dec. 5.4.94, D.R. 77-A p. 81).

      Furthermore, the Commission may ensure that the presentation of

evidence was fair, but cannot review the interpretation and application

of national law (cf. No. 10153/82, Dec. 13.10.86, D.R. 49 p. 67). The

effect of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention is, inter

alia, to place the domestic courts under a duty to conduct a proper

examination of the submissions, arguments and evidence adduced by the

parties, without prejudice to the domestic courts' assessment thereof

(Eur. Court H.R., Van de Hurk judgment, loc. cit., p. 19, para. 59).

      The Commission finds no indication that the applicants'

respective lawyers, or the applicants in person, were prevented from

making full submissions on the question of entitlement to a reference

quantity under the relevant domestic rules. The applicants were

provided with ample opportunity to state their respective cases, to

submit evidence and to challenge the submissions made by the opposing

party, both orally and in writing.

      Insofar as it is alleged that the Industrial Appeals Tribunal

erred in its assessment of the evidence adduced by the applicants, it

is clear from the established case-law of the Commission referred to

above, that this is not a complaint which raises an issue as to the

rights guaranteed by Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

      As regards the complaint that the Industrial Appeals Tribunal did

not deal, or insufficiently dealt with various arguments advanced by

the applicants in the proceedings at issue, the Commission recalls that

Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention obliges national courts

to give reasons for their judgments, but cannot be understood as

requiring a detailed answer to every argument (cf. Eur. Court H.R.,

Hiro Balani judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 303-B, para. 27).

      Making a general assessment, the Commission finds that the

decisions of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal, of which complaint is

made, were sufficiently reasoned for the purposes of Article 6 para.

1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.

      It follows that these complaints must be rejected as being

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

      cc.  Applications Nos. 16118/90, 16583/90 and 16843/90

      The applicants mentioned under Nos. 8, 10 and 11 complain that

the principle of "equality of arms" has been violated because, whilst

they were required under Section 6 para. 2 of the 1984 Ordinance to

produce all their arguments and evidence at the outset, the Minister

could change his arguments or amend his decision to suit his position

as the case evolved.

      The Commission recalls that, as regards proceedings concerning

a determination of civil rights and obligations, the principle of

"equality of arms" implies that each party must be afforded a

reasonable opportunity to present his case under conditions that do not

place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis his opponent (Eur.

Court H.R., Dombo Beheer B.V. judgment of 27 October 1993, Series A no.

274, p. 19, para. 33).

      The Commission further recalls that the Court, in the case of Van

de Hurk where the same complaint was made, held that this complaint

overlooks the fact that Section 51 of the Industrial Appeals Act meets

the requirement of "equality of arms" in that it allows both parties

to the proceedings before the Industrial Appeals Tribunal to "alter

their claim or their defence and the grounds advanced in support" (Eur.

Court H.R., Van de Hurk judgment, loc. cit., p. 19, para. 57).

      As regards the applicant mentioned under No. 8, the Commission

notes that it does not appear that in this case the Minister changed

his arguments or amended his decision. As regards the applicants

mentioned under Nos. 10 and 11 the Commission notes that in those cases

the Minister did in fact alter his decision. The applicant mentioned

under No. 10 availed himself of the opportunity to supplement his

appeal to the Industrial Appeals Tribunal following the Minister's

amended decision. It does not appear that the applicants mentioned

under No. 11 availed themselves of the possibility to supplement their

appeal, which they could have done between 24 April 1989, when the

Minister revised his decision, and 26 October 1989, when their case was

heard before the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

      In these circumstances the Commission finds no indication that

the principle of equality of arms has not been respected.

      It follows that this complaint must also be rejected as being

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

c)    Length of proceedings

      The applicants mentioned under Nos. 5, 7, 24 and 25 further

complain under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention that

their civil rights have not been determined within a reasonable time.

      The Government submit that, following the introduction of the

super levy in 1984, some 40.000 applications for reference quantities

were submitted to the Minister and some 10.000 dairy farmers

subsequently lodged a notice of objection. The Industrial Appeals

Tribunal had to deal with over 7.000 appeals. This overburdened both

the Ministry and the Industrial Appeals Tribunal, which had

insufficient staff to deal with so many cases. The Government further

submit that as a result of this extra workload the Ministry employed

extra staff and allocated extra funds to the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal in order to allow it to employ extra judges and support staff

for the super levy cases.

      The applicants submit that the Government could have prevented

the long duration of the proceedings and the resulting insecurity for

the parties. The Government could have opted for another appeal

procedure, i.e. by making the civil courts competent to decide on

appeals concerning the allocation of reference quantities. In that case

an appeal could have been determined by one of the 19 Regional Courts

in the Netherlands as opposed to one appeal court.

      The Commission recalls that the reasonableness of the length of

proceedings must be assessed in the light of the particular

circumstances of the case and with the help of the following criteria:

the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties and the conduct

of the authorities dealing with the case (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Vernillo

judgment of 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, p. 12, para. 30)

      aa.  Application No. 20311/92

      The Commission notes that the proceedings, of which the applicant

mentioned under No. 24 complains, started on 30 November 1989, when the

applicant filed an objection with the Minister (cf. Eur. Court H.R.,

Schouten and Meldrum judgment of 9 December 1994, Series A no. 304,

para. 62). The Minister rejected the objection on 16 July 1990. The

proceedings ended on 30 October 1991 when the Industrial Appeals

Tribunal, following two hearings held on 27 February 1991 and 11

September 1991 respectively, rejected the applicant's appeal against

the Minister' decision. The proceedings thus lasted one year and eleven

months.

      The Commission cannot find that there were any substantial delays

in the proceedings or that the total duration of those proceedings was

unreasonably long.

      It follows that this part of Application No. 20311/92 must be

rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27

para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

      bb.  Applications Nos. 15712/89, 15988/90 and 22532/93

      The Commission notes that the proceedings complained of in

Application No. 15712/89 (No. 5) started on 30 October 1984 when the

applicant filed an objection with the Minister, who rejected it on 11

March 1986. The proceedings ended on 10 May 1989 when the Industrial

Appeals Tribunal, following a hearing held on 25 January 1989, rejected

the applicant's appeal against the Minister's decision.

      The proceedings complained of in Application No. 15988/90 (No.

7) started on 9 October 1984 when the applicant filed an objection with

the Minister, who rejected it on 30 July 1985. The proceedings ended

on 7 June 1989 when the Industrial Appeals Tribunal, following a

hearing held on 19 April 1989, rejected the applicant's appeal against

the Minister's decision.

      The proceedings complained of in Application No. 22532/93 (No.

25) started on 7 November 1989 when the applicants filed an objection

with the Minister, who rejected it on 23 October 1991. The proceedings

ended on 14 April 1993 when the Industrial Appeals Tribunal, following

a hearing held on 3 March 1993, rejected the applicants' appeal against

the Minister's decision.

      After a preliminary examination of the present complaint in the

light of the parties' submissions, the Commission considers that it

raises issues of fact and law which require an examination of the

merits. This complaint cannot, therefore, be declared inadmissible as

being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other grounds of inadmissibility have

been established.

d)    Lack of further appeal

      The applicant mentioned under No. 20 complains under Article 6

para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention that no appeal lies against a

judgment of the Industrial Appeals Tribunal.

      The Commission finds that this complaint cannot be separated from

the complaint that the Industrial Appeals Tribunal cannot be regarded

as a "tribunal" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of

the Convention, the issues being closely interrelated. It, therefore,

considers that this complaint cannot be declared inadmissible as being

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention. No other grounds for inadmissibility

have been established.

5.    As regards Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention

      The applicants mentioned under Nos. 1, 6, 13 and 18 also complain

that the proceedings to which they were a party were contrary to

Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention.

      Article 6 para. 2 (Art. 6-2) of the Convention reads as follows:

      "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed

      innocent until proved guilty according to law."

      The Commission recalls that the presumption of innocence will be

violated if a judicial decision concerning persons charged with a

criminal offence reflects an opinion that they are guilty before they

have been proved guilty according to law, and that not only a judge or

a court but also other public authorities can infringe the presumption

of innocence (Eur. Court H.R., Allenet de Ribemont judgment of

10 February 1995, Series A no. 308, paras. 35-36).

      The Commission observes that the proceedings complained of

concerned the question whether or not the applicants were eligible for

a reference quantity under the rules of the 1984 Ordinance, and that

they did not involve any determination of a criminal charge to which

the presumption of innocence would have applied.

      It follows that this complaint must be rejected as manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

6.    As regards Article 13 of the Convention, in conjunction with

      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Art. 13+P1-1)

      The applicants mentioned under No. 25 complain under Article 13

of the Convention, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(Art. 13+P1-1), that they had no effective remedy in respect of the

determination of their request for a reference quantity.

      Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention provides as follows:

      "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this

      Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a

      national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been

      committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

      Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) reads as follows:

      "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful

      enjoyment of his possessions.  No one shall be deprived of his

      possessions except in the public interest and subject to the

      conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of

      international law.

      The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair

      the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary

      to control the use of property in accordance with the general

      interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions

      or penalties."

      The Commission recalls that Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1)

applies only to existing possessions (Eur. Court H.R., Van der Mussele

judgment of 23 November 1983, Series A no. 70, p. 23, para. 48), and

that this provision does not guarantee any right to acquire property

(cf. No. 11628/85, Dec. 9.5.86, D.R. 47 p. 271).

      The Commission also recalls that the question whether a licence

to conduct economic activities amounts to a "possession" within the

meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) depends, inter alia, on

whether it gives rise to a reasonable and legitimate expectation of

continuing benefits. A licence holder cannot be considered to have such

an expectation where the conditions attached to the licence are not or

no longer fulfilled (No. 19819/92, Dec. 5.7.94, D.R. 78 p. 88).

      In the present case, a reference quantity, provisionally granted

under the condition that the applicants would have taken over their

father's farm before 1 April 1989, was withdrawn as the applicants had

failed to submit sufficient evidence that they had in fact taken over

their father's farm before 1 April 1989.

      In these circumstances, the Commission considers that the

withdrawal of the provisionally granted reference quantity did not

affect any property right protected under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

(P1-1).

      As regards Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention, the Commission

notes, in the first place, that the word "remedy" within the meaning

of this provision does not mean a remedy bound to succeed, but simply

an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the

merits of a complaint (cf. No. 11468/85, Dec. 15.10.86. D.R. 50 p.

199).

      In the second place, the guarantees of Article 13 (Art. 13) apply

only to a grievance which can be regarded as "arguable" (cf. No.

18598/91, Dec. 18.5.94, D.R. 78 p. 71). In the present case the

Commission has rejected the substantive claim under Article 1 of

Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) as falling outside the scope of that provision.

The applicants' complaint under Article 13 of the Convention in

conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Art. 13+P1-1) cannot,

therefore, be regarded as "arguable".

      It follows that this complaint must be rejected as manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

7.    As regards Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention

      The applicants mentioned under No. 25 finally complain that the

proceedings on their request for a reference quantity constituted

mental torture, contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, and

violated Articles 7 and 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights, Article 3 paras. 2 and 3 of the EEC Council

Regulation no. 857/84 and Section 43 of the Statute of the Kingdom of

the Netherlands.

      The Commission first points out that it can only examine a

complaint on the basis of the provisions of the European Convention on

Human Rights. Insofar as the applicants also refer to the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the EEC Council regulation no.

857/84 and the Statute of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, these

complaints fall outside the competence of the Commission.

      Insofar as the applicants allege that the proceedings in respect

of their application for a reference quantity violated their rights

under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, the Commission recalls that

measures not involving physical ill-treatment may constitute inhuman

or degrading treatment provided it attains a minimum level of severity

(East African Asians v. the United Kingdom, Comm. Report 14.12.73,

paras. 188-195, D.R. 78 p. 5).

      Although the proceedings to which the applicants were a party may

have caused them a degree of hardship and insecurity, the Commission

finds that the "minimum level of severity" envisaged by Article 3

(Art. 3) of the Convention was not attained.

      It follows that this complaint must be rejected as manifestly

ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

      For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

1.    DECIDES TO JOIN THE APPLICATIONS;

2.    DECLARES INADMISSIBLE Applications Nos. 18340/90 and 19637/90,

      as well as Application No. 17001/90 as regards the second set of

      proceedings;

3.    As regards the other applications as well as the remaining part

      of Application No. 17001/90:

      DECLARES ADMISSIBLE, without prejudging the merits,

      - the applicants' complaints that their civil rights and

      obligations were not determined by a "tribunal" within the

      meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention;

      - the applicants' complaints in Applications Nos. 15712/89,

      15988/90 and 22532/93 that their civil rights and obligations

      were not determined within a reasonable time within the meaning

      of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention;

      - the applicant's complaint in Application No. 18615/91 that no

      appeal lies against a judgment of the Industrial Appeals

      Tribunal;

      DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the applications.

Secretary to the Second Chamber      President of the Second Chamber

        (M.-T. SCHOEPFER)                    (H. DANELIUS)

               APPENDIX TO DECISION OF 7 SEPTEMBER 1995

                        LIST OF 25 APPLICATIONS

      1. Application No. 14561/89      2. Application No. 14657/89

      introduced on 23 January 1987    introduced on 27 November 1988

      by J.S.                          by P.B. and A.B

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      registered on 20 January 1989    registered on 16 February 1989

      3. Application No. 15105/89      4. Application No. 15343/89

      introduced on 19 March 1989      introduced on 28 March 1989

      by C.A. and W.H. VAN DEN BERG    by A.A. and E.A.

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      registered on 12 June 1989       registered on 2 August 1989

      5. Application No. 15712/89      6. Application No. 15908/89

      introduced on 30 August 1989     introduced on 11 August 1989

      by J.W. JANSEN                   by J.B. and M.B.

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      registered on 30 October 1989    registered on 14 December 1989

      7. Application No. 15988/90      8. Application No. 16118/90

      introduced on 1 December 1989    introduced on 12 December 1989

      by F.C. VAN OIRSCHOT             by Th.C.M. GIEBELS

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      registered on 15 January 1990    registered on 1 February 1990

      9. Application No. 16513/90      10.  Application No. 16583/90

      introduced on 5 March 1990       introduced on 7 March 1990

      by G.J.T. WILLEMSEN              by H.P.J. SIMONS

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      registered on 26 April 1990      registered on 14 May 1990

      11. Application No. 16843/90     12. Application No. 16896/90

      introduced on 11 May 1990        introduced on 20 April 1990

      by J.O. and C.O.                 by J.S. and Th.S.

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      registered on 10 July 1990       registered on 19 July 1990

      13. Application No. 16897/90     14. Application No. 17001/90

      introduced on 6 April 1990       introduced on 1 June 1990

      by J.W. and D.W.                 by J.B.G. KLINK

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      registered on 19 July 1990       registered on 9 August 1990

      15. Application No. 17241/90     16. Application No. 17252/90

      introduced on 31 July 1990       introduced on 31 July 1990

      by F.S.                          by H. BRAAM

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      registered on 1 October 1990     registered on 3 October 1990

      17. Application No. 17675/91     18. Application No. 17883/91

      introduced on 31 October 1990    introduced on 17 December 1990

      by A.J. VERSMISSEN               by Th.B.

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      registered on 16 January 1991    registered on 11 March 1991

      19. Application No. 18340/91     20. Application No. 18615/91

      introduced on 11 April 1991      introduced on 22 July 1991

      by P.F.M. VAN DER HEIJDEN        by P.H.

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      registered on 11 June 1991       registered on 30 July 1991

      21. Application No. 19590/92     22. Application No. 19591/92

      introduced on 8 January 1992     introduced on 6 January 1992

      by C.D.                          by J.B.

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      registered on 5 March 1992       registered on 5 March 1992

      23. Application No. 19637/92     24. Application No. 20311/92

      introduced on 16 January 1992    introduced on 30 April 1992

      by L.A.M. VERHAGEN               by L.A.G. HUIJBEN

      against the Netherlands          against the Netherlands

      registered on 16 March 1992      registered on 17 July 1992

                      25. Application No. 22532/93

                      introduced on 30 June 1993

                      by E.P. and C.P.

                      against the Netherlands

                      registered on 26 August 1993

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy