Benthem v Netherlands
| Benthem v Netherlands | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||||||
| Submitted March 20 1984 Decided October 23 1985 | |||||||||||
| Full case name | Benthem v Netherlands | ||||||||||
| Court composition | |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| Legislation affecting | |||||||||||
| Art. 6 ECHR | |||||||||||
Benthem v Netherlands, in Dutch literature referred to as Benthem, was a legal case argued before the European Court of Human Rights, between the Netherlands and the Dutch national Albert Benthem.
Municipal authorities granted Benthem a licence, which was destroyed by the Crown (Dutch government) on appeal. Benthem filed an application before the Court and claimed that the Dutch authorities denied him the right to a fair trial of Article 6 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as the Crown was not an independent and impartial tribunal. The Court held that there was a violation of Article 6 (1) by the Dutch authorities.
The ruling of the Court led to substantial changes of Dutch administrative law, most notable the elimination of the Kroonberoep (Dutch for 'Crown appeal') and the inclusion of a court procedure.
Circumstances of the case
Albert Benthem used to own and run a garage in Noordwolde, Netherlands. On April 1976 he applied to the municipal authorities for a licence to establish and maintain an installation for the delivery of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). After the application was made public, three neighbours expressed fear of fire and explosion being caused by lightning. A regional health inspector advised the municipal authorities to deny Benthem's request. Despite the health inspector's advise, the licence was granted on August, with several conditions to counter possible dangers.
On September, the health inspector lodged an appeal with the Crown, the so-called Kroonberoep. Investigations by the Dutch government on June 1979 led to the conclusion that the licence should not have been granted. The municipal authorities' decision, and therefore the licence, was quashed by Royal decree a few weeks later. During that time, Benthem had already established the LPG installation. The municipal authorities ordered him to cease operation. His appeal against that decision was denied on June 1980, as the Crown confirmed the earlier decree. A second decision, providing for the closure of the installation by the authorities themselves, was quashed on formal grounds by the Council of State on July 1982.
Benthem filed an application with the European Commission of Human Rights on December 1979. He claimed that a dispute over civil rights and obligations was involved and that his case was not heard by an independent and impartial tribunal, thus being a violation of the right to a fair trial of Article 6 (1) ECHR. His application was declared admissible on March 1982. The Commission expressed the opinion that Article 6 (1) of the Convention was not applicable in the case, that it was not necessary to determine whether the proceedings complained of were in conformity with the requirements of that provision and that there had been no breach thereof.
Both the Dutch government and Benthem requested a decision of the European Court of Human Rights on August 1984. By that time, Benthem had been declared bankrupt.