Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19850710-1097184
Timestamp: 2016-10-25 01:50:09+00:00
Document Index: 26066631

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 32", "l'article 14", "l'article 14", "l'article 14", "l'article 27"]

VOS c. PAYS-BAS
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche VOS c. PAYS-BAS
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 10971/84Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1985-07-10;10971.84 Analyses : (Art. 5-3) DUREE DE LA DETENTION PROVISOIRE, (Art. 6) PROCEDURE PENALEParties : Demandeurs : VOSDéfendeurs : PAYS-BASTexte : APPLICATION/REQIJÃTE NÂ° 10971/84
Hendrika Sophia VOS v/the NETHERLANDS Hendrika Sophia VOS c/PAYS-BA S DECISION of 10 July 1985 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 10 juillet 1985 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Articfe l of the First Protocol : A claim to a disability pension is nor a possession within the nteaning of this Article where, as in the Netherlands, such a pension is paid under a general system based on social solidairty wirh no member of rhe svstem having an identifiable share in the fund. Article 1 - du Protocole additionnel : Ne constiruenr pas un bien protÃ©gÃ© par cene disposition les prÃ©tentions Ã une rente d'invaliditÃ© lorsque, comme aux Pays-Bas, ceae rente est versÃ©e en venu d'un rÃ©gime gÃ©nÃ©ral . fondÃ© sur la solidaritÃ© sociale et dont aucun assurÃ© nest ritulaire d'une part identifiable .
(franÃ§ais : voir p . 1 92 )
The facts of the case, as they have been submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows : The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1919 and at present residing at Velp, the Netherlands . In the proceedings before the Commission, the applicant is represented by Mr . A . Willems, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam . The applicant received disability benefits from I October 1976 until 12 October 1979, when the New General Trade Association (Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging) decided to withdraw these benefits, because the applicant's forme r
husband (from whom she was divorced in 1957) had died and she had consequently, as of I May 1979, been awarded a pension under the General Widows and Orphans Act (Algemene Weduwen- en Wezenwet) . The applicant, whose monthly income as a result of the above decision was reduced by DII . 90 .- net, thereupon appealed to the Council of Appeal (Raad van Beroep), claiming that Section 32 of the General Labour Disability Act (Algemene Arbeidsongeschiktheidswet) . which provides that women who obtain the right to a pension under the General Widows and Orphans Act lose their right to disability benefits, was contrary to the principle of equal treatment of men and women . However, on 10 March 1980, the President of the Council of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeal . Subsequently, the applicant introduced a further appeal (Verzet) to the Council of Appeal against the decision of its President . On 23 June 1981, the Council rejected the applicant's appeal . It considered, inter alia, that the impugned legislation was compatible with Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article I of Protocol No . I of the Convention, since the benefits concemed were based on a statutory insurance against disability and no direct link existed between contributions and benefits . The applicant then appealed to the Central Council of Appeal (Centrale Raad van Beroep), but this appeal was rejected on I November 1983 . The Council was of the opinion that the applicant's case was not in any way related to the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions, as lÃ¢id down in Article I of Protocol No . I to the Convention . Consequently . it found that Article 14 of the Convention was not applicable .
THE LA W The applicant has complained that the withdrawal of her disability benefits constituted a discriminatory difference in treatment contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article I of Protocol No . I to the Convention, which provides, inter alia, that "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 Commission notes that the social secu ri ty benefits at issue were awarded under the General Labour Disability Act, which is set up as a general insurance system ( Volksverzekering), based on the principle of social solidarity . Under this
system, no direct link exists between the level of contributions and the benefits awarded . Consequently, a person does not have, at any given moment, an identifiable and claimable share in the fund . Therefore, the Commission is of the opinion that, in the above circumstances, the right to benefits cannot be considered to constitute a property right which could be described as "possessions" within the meaning of Article I of Protocol No . I to the Convention . Accordingly, the applicant's complaints under this provision must be rejected as being incompatible ratione nrateriae the provisions of the Convention . It follows that the applicant's complaints under Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article I of Prot ( col No . I to the Convention must also be rejected as being incompatible ratione mareriae with the provisions of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
ÃlRADUCT/ON) EN FAIT Les faits de la cause, tels que la requÃ©rante les a exposÃ©s- peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit . La requÃ©rante est une ressortissante nÃ©erlandaise, nÃ©e en 1919 et habitant actuellement Velp aux Pays-Bas . Dans la procÃ©dure devant la Commission, elle est reprÃ©sentÃ©e par Me A . Willems, avocat Ã Amsterdam . La requÃ©rante a perÃ§u des prestations d'invaliditÃ© du I - octobre 1976 au 12 octobre 1979 . date Ã laquelle la nouvelle Association gÃ©nÃ©rale ( Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging) dÃ©cida de les lui retirer parce que son prÃ©cÃ©dent mari (dont elle Ã©tait divorcÃ©e depuis 1957) Ã©tait dÃ©cÃ©dÃ© et que, depuis le 1Â° 1 mai 1979, elle percevait en consÃ©quence une pension en vertu de la loi gÃ©nÃ©rale sur les veuves et orphelins (Algemene Weduwen- en Wezenwep .
La requÃ©rante, qui a vu son revenu mensuel rÃ©duit de 90 Florins net par suite de cette dÃ©cision, saisit la commission de recours (Raad van Beroep), en arguant de ce que l'article 32 de la loi gÃ©nÃ©rale sur l'incapicitÃ© de travail (Algemene Arbeidsongeschiktheidswet) - selon lequel les femmes qui ont droit Ã une pension en vertu de la loi gÃ©nÃ©rale sur les veuves et orphelins perdent leur droit aux prestations d'invaliditÃ© - est contraire aux principes d'Ã©galitÃ© de traitement entre hommes et femmes . Le 10 mars 1980, cependant . le prÃ©sident du Conseil de recours rejeta l'appel de la requÃ©rante . UltÃ©rieurement, la requÃ©rante forma contre la dÃ©cision du prÃ©sident une opposition (Veaet), auprÃ©s du mÃªme Conseil . Le 23 juin 1981, le Conseil rejeta l'opposition de la requÃ©rante . Il estima notamment que la lÃ©gislation attaquÃ©e se conciliait avec l'article 14 de la Convention, lu en liaison avec l'article I du Protocole additionnel Ã la Convention, puisque les prestations en question se fondaient sur une assurance lÃ©gale contre l'invaliditÃ© et qu'il n'existait aucun lien direct entre cotisations et prestations . Le requÃ©rante fit alors appel Ã la commission cenlrale de recours (Centrale Raad van Bercep), mais fut dÃ©boutÃ©e le 1Â° 1 novembre 1983 . Le conseil estinta que l'affaire de la requÃ©rante n'Ã©tait nullement liÃ©e au droit au respect de ses biens tel que l'Ã©nonce l'anicle I du Protocole additionnel Ã la Convention . L'anicle 14 n'Ã©tait dÃ¨s lors pas applicable .
EN DROI T La requÃ©rante s'est plainte de ce que la suppression de ses prestations d'invaliditÃ© constituait une diffÃ©rence discriminatoire de traitement, contraire Ã l'article 14 de la Convention, lu en liaison avec l'article I du Protocole additionnel Ã la Convention, qui stipule notamment : â¢Toute personne physique ou morale a droit au respect de ses biens . Nul ne peut Ã©tre privÃ© de sa propriÃ©tÃ© que pour cause d'utilitÃ© publique et dans les conditions prÃ©vues par la loi et les principes gÃ©nÃ©raux du droit international . â¢ La Commission relÃ¨ve que les prestations de sÃ©curitÃ© sociale en question son t accordÃ©es conformÃ©ment Ã la loi gÃ©nÃ©rale sur l'incapacitÃ© de travail, qui est conÃ§ue comme un rÃ©gime gÃ©nÃ©ral d'assurances (Volksverzekering) . fondÃ© sur le principe de la solidaritÃ© sociale . Dans ce rÃ©gime, il n'existe aucun lien direct entre le taux des cotisations et les prestations accordÃ©es . En consÃ©quence, personne ne jouit jamais d'une pan identifiable et exigible du fonds commun .
DÃ¨s lors, la Commission estime que, dans ces conditions, le droit aux prestations ne saurait Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ© comme un droit de propriÃ©tÃ© pouvant Ãªtre qualifiÃ© de . bien- au sens de l'article I du Protocole additionnel . En consÃ©quence, les griefs formulÃ©s par la requÃ©rante au regard de cetle disposition doivent Ã©tre rejetÃ©s comme incompatibles ratione materiae avec les dispositions de la Convention . Il s'ensuit que les griefs tirÃ©s par la requÃ©rante de l'article 14 de la Convention, lu en liaison avec l'article I du Protocole additionnel, doivent eux aussi Ãªtre rejetÃ©s comme incompatibles ratione materiae avec les dispositions de la Convention, au sens de l'article 27 par . 2 de la Convention .
194Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 10/07/1985Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page