Benthem v Netherlands
Benthem v Netherlands was a European Court of Human Rights case on the right to a fair trial. It concerned the grant of a permit by a municipal authority, with which the Dutch Government, then referred to as the Crown in legal cases, disagreed. Several legal proceedings were brought in respect of this permit, which were ultimately decided by the Government itself, under the Kroonberoep procedure ('Crown appeal').
| Benthem v Netherlands | |
|---|---|
| Submitted March 20 1984 Decided October 23 1985 | |
| Full case name | Benthem v Netherlands |
| ECLI:CE:ECHR:1985:1023JUD000884880 | |
| Court composition | |
| Judge-Rapporteur M.A. Eissen | |
| President R. Ryssdal | |
Judges
| |
| Legislation affecting | |
| Art. 6 ECHR | |
Benthem eventually filed an application before the Court and claimed that the Government had denied him the right to a fair trial of Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), arguing that the Government was not an "independent and impartial tribunal". The Court held that there was a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR.
The ruling of the Court led to substantial changes of Dutch administrative law, most notable the elimination of the Kroonberoep and the establishment of a separate court procedure.
Facts
Albert Benthem used to own and run a garage in Noordwolde, Netherlands. In April 1976, he applied to the municipal authorities for a permit to establish and maintain an installation for the delivery of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). After the application was made public, three neighbours were concerned about the safety of the installation. A regional health inspector recommended to deny Benthem's application. Despite the health inspector's advice, the permit was granted, albeit with several conditions to counter possible dangers.
The health inspector lodged an appeal with the Government, the so-called Kroonberoep. The Government held that the permit should not have been granted and quashed it by royal decree. During that time, Benthem had already established the LPG installation. The municipal authorities ordered him to cease operation. His appeal against that decision, which was also a Kroonberoep, was denied with reference to the earlier decree. The municipal authorities eventually decided to close the installation themselves. An appeal against that decision was quashed on formal grounds by the Council of State.
Benthem filed an application with the European Commission of Human Rights. He claimed that a dispute over civil rights and obligations was involved and his case should have been heard by an independent and impartial tribunal as guaranteed under the right to a fair trial of Article 6(1) ECHR.
The Commission held that Article 6(1) of the Convention was not applicable to his case. Both the Government and Benthem appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. By that time, Benthem had been declared bankrupt.
Judgment
The Court held that there was a violation of Article 6(1) ECHR.