CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 décembre 1996

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          Application No. 26330/95                       by Technisch Installatiebureau                          Van Der Moezel B.V.                       against the Netherlands          The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 3 December 1996, the following members being present:              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE, President            MM.    J.-C. GEUS                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  J.-C. SOYER                  H. DANELIUS                  F. MARTINEZ                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN                  E. BIELIUNAS                  E.A. ALKEMA              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 application introduced on 19 December 1994 by Technisch Installatiebureau Van der Moezel B.V. against the Netherlands and registered on 27 January 1995 under file No. 26330/95;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;          Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant is a company with limited liability, having its registered seat in Schiedam, the Netherlands. Before the Commission, the applicant company is represented by Mr G.J. Schipper, a lawyer practising in Rotterdam.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant company, may be summarised as follows.        In 1985 the applicant company subcontracted certain works to another company S. and paid a total amount of 45.282,45 Dutch guilders for social security contributions to a special bank account held by S. for this purpose, a so-called "G-account" (G-rekening) within the meaning of Section 16 (b) para. 5 of the Social Security Co-ordination Act (Coördinatiewet Sociale Verzekeringen).        On 16 September 1986 S. was declared bankrupt. It then appeared that S. had not or not fully paid the social security premiums due in the year 1985 to the Occupational Association for the Metal Industry (Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Metaalnijverheid). The Occupational Association, together with the Inspectorate of Wage Taxes (Inspectie Loonbelasting), subsequently started an investigation into the amount of S.'s debt to the Occupational Association and the possibilities of obtaining redress. In this context, agents of both organs inspected the applicant company's premises and accounts in the beginning of 1987.        The investigation was closed on 6 August 1987. In the report on the investigation it was concluded that the applicant company, together with fifteen others, could be held jointly and severally liable for the debts of S. in respect of the social security contributions.        By letter of 26 October 1989, the Occupational Association informed the applicant company of its intention to hold the applicant company liable for payment of a part of S.'s social security contributions debt. The applicant company was invited to submit its possible objections within four weeks. The applicant company submitted an objection by letter of 20 November 1989 without indicating any legal grounds. It was explained that for the time being the company was unable to comment on the merits of the case, as it could not reach its former director.        On 21 December 1990 the Occupational Association issued a formal decision in which the applicant company was held liable for a part of S.'s social security contributions debt.        On 18 January 1991 the applicant company filed an appeal against this formal decision with the Appeals Tribunal (Raad van Beroep) of Rotterdam. Its grounds of appeal were submitted on 15 August 1991.        The Occupational Association replied to these grounds on 12 November 1991. The applicant company submitted a counter-memorial on 3 January 1992.        Following a change in procedural rules of administrative law, the examination of the applicant company's appeal was transferred on 1 July 1992 from the Appeals Tribunal to the Administrative Law Division of the Regional Court (Sector Bestuursrecht Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Rotterdam.        On 27 May 1993, following a hearing, the Administrative Law Division of the Regional Court of Rotterdam rejected the appeal as ill- founded. A copy of this decision was sent to the parties on 9 June 1993.        The applicant company filed an appeal against this decision with the Central Appeals Tribunal (Centrale Raad van Beroep) on 5 July 1993. One of its grounds of appeal was that the period of time which had elapsed between 6 August 1987, when the investigation was closed, and 26 October 1989, when the Occupational Association informed the applicant company for the first time of its intention to seek payment, constituted an unreasonable delay contrary to Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.        On 5 November 1993 the Central Appeals Tribunal transmitted the applicant company's grounds of appeal to the Occupational Association for comments. These comments were submitted on 18 January 1994.        Following a hearing held on 18 May 1994, the Central Appeals Tribunal rejected the appeal on 22 June 1994 and upheld the Regional Court's decision of 27 May 1993. As regards the complaint under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention, the Central Appeals Tribunal held that the Occupational Association's course of action concerning its liability claim against the applicant company could not really be labelled expeditious. It did not, however, find that as a consequence thereof the Occupational Association's claim should be rejected.     COMPLAINTS   1.    The applicant company complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that its civil rights and obligations have not been determined within a reasonable time. It complains in particular of the delay which occurred between the investigation of its premises and accounts in the beginning of 1987 and the written liability claim of 26 October 1989 and the further delay between the letter of 26 October 1989 and the formal decision which was issued on 21 December 1990.   2.    The applicant company further complains that, since the Occupational Association was able to delay the access to a court of appeal by withholding the formal decision, it had been deprived of a fair hearing within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.     PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 19 December 1994 and registered on 27 January 1995.        On 11 April 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.        In a letter dated 9 July 1996 the Government informed the Commission that they were prepared to consider a friendly settlement with the applicant company on the basis that they would reimburse the costs incurred by the applicant company in the proceedings before the Commission insofar as they were reasonable and specified and not covered by legal aid paid for by authorities in the Netherlands and/or by the Council of Europe, and that they would pay the applicant company an ex gratia sum of 2,500 Dutch guilders.        On 16 October 1996 the applicant company confirmed that as a consequence of the settlement with the Government it wished to withdraw the application.     REASONS        Having regard to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, the Commission notes that, by letter of 16 October 1996, the applicant company informed the Commission that it does not intend to pursue its application since it has reached a settlement with the respondent Government. The Commission finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require examination of the application to be continued, in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.        M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               G.H. THUNE       Secretary                                   President to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber