CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 juillet 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Published on 28 August 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 26337/22 Dina VELDSINK-SCHOONBEEK and Albert Johan VELDSINK against the Netherlands lodged on 16 May 2022 communicated on 19 July 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns reimbursement of legal expenses in administrative proceedings. The applicants challenged the order to remove buildings on their land that according to the local authorities were built in violation of the zoning plan. They were successful with their further appeal before the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State and were awarded compensation for costs of legal representation based on a flat-rate system. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the   applicants allege that their right of access to a court has been violated owing to the fact that their legal expenses were not reimbursed in full. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the ‘flat rate’ type of reimbursement of legal expenses in administrative proceedings amount to a restriction of the applicants’ right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Černius and Rinkevičius v. Lithuania , nos.   73579/17 and   14620/18 , § 68, 18   February 2020, and Dragan Kovačević v. Croatia , no.   49281/15 , §§ 70-71, 12   May 2022)?   2.     Without prejudice to the answer to the previous question and assuming that there has been a restriction of the applicant’s right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, did that restriction pursue a   legitimate aim (see Černius and Rinkevičius , § 69, and Dragan Kovačević , § 76, both cited above) and was there a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved (see Zubac v. Croatia   [GC], no.   40160/12 , § 78, 5 April 2018, and the cases cited therein)?