Site icon swarb.co.uk

Van Marle And Others v The Netherlands: ECHR 26 Jun 1986

The applicants were accountants who had practised as such for some years when a new statute came into force which required then to register. Their applications were refused.
Held: Article 1PI was engaged. In paragraphs 41 and 42 the Court said this: ‘The Court agrees with the Commission that the right relied upon by the applicants may be likened to the right of property embodied in Article 1: by dint of their own work, the applicants had built up a clientele: this had in many respects the nature of a private right and constituted an asset and, hence, a possession within the meaning of the first sentence of Article 1. This provision was accordingly applicable in the present case.
The refusal to register the applicants as certified accountants radically affected the conditions of their professional activities and the scope of those activities was reduced. Their income fell, as did the value of their clientele and, more generally, their business. Consequently, there was interference with their right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.’

Citations:

[1986] ECHR 6, 8674/79, 8543/79, 8675/79, (1986) 8 EHRR 483

Links:

Worldlii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Cited by:

CitedMalik, Regina (on the Application of) v Waltham Forest PCT and Secretary of State for Health Admn 17-Mar-2006
The doctor had been suspended on full pay whilst allegations against him were investigated. He claimed that the suspension infringed his human rights and that his licence to practice was a possession.
Held: At the disciplinary proceedings: . .
CitedMurungaru v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others CA 12-Sep-2008
The claimant was a former Kenyan minister. He had been visiting the UK for medical treatment. His visas were cancelled on the basis that his presence was not conducive to the public good. Public Interest Immunity certificates had been issued to . .
CitedTrent Strategic Health Authority v Jain and Another HL 21-Jan-2009
The claimants’ nursing home business had been effectively destroyed by the actions of the Authority which had applied to revoke their licence without them being given notice and opportunity to reply. They succeeded on appeal, but the business was by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.211534

Exit mobile version