1. ECHR, Series A, vol. 33.

2. ECHR, Series A, vol. 31.

3. See, e.g., HR 10 January 1916, NJ 1916 p. 262; HR 9 March 1938, NJ 1938 No. 1000; HR 5 May 1972, NJ 1973 No. 17. The case law was based on the opinion that the Crown appeal procedure itself offered sufficient guarantees for a fair hearing in the last instance.

4. S. 26 of the Council of State Act.

5. See ss. 32–55a of the same Act.

6. Ss. 57 and 58 of the same Act.

7. Decision on the Admissibility of Application No. 8848/80, Benthem v The Netherlands, 10 March 1982, paras. 2 and 3 of ‘The Law’.

8. See Art. 28 of the Convention.

9. The opinion of the Commission has been published as an Annex to the judgment of the Court; ECHR, Series A, vol. 97, pp. 33–36. The full text of the Report will be published in Series B, vol. 80, and has been distributed in mimeographed form.

10. See Art. 48 of the Convention.

11. Ibid.; Mr. Benthem did not have this right: Art. 44 of the Convention.

12. See Rule 50 of the Rules of Court.

13. See Rules 28–30 of the Rules of Court.

14. ECHR, Series A, vol. 97.

15. Engel case, Judgment of 8 06 1976, ECHR, Series A, vol. 22Google Scholar.

16. See van Dijk, P. and van Hoof, G.J.H., Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (1984) pp. 243–247Google Scholar.

17. Golder case; Report of 1 June 1973, ECHR, Series B, vol. 16, pp. 44–45; Judgment of 21 February 1975, idem, Series A, vol. 18, pp. 16–18. Airey case; Report of 9 March 1977, idem, Series B, vol. 30, pp. 31–33; Judgment of 9 October 1979, idem, Series A, vol. 32, pp. 12–16. De Weer case; Report of 5 October 1978, idem, Series B, vol. 33, pp. 27–28; Judgment of 27 February 1980, idem, vol. 35, pp. 25–26.

18. Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere case, Judgment of 23 07 1981, ECHR, Series A, vol. 43, p. 20Google Scholar.

19. Ringeisen case; Report of 19 March 1970, ECHR, Series B, vol. 11, p. 69; Judgment of 16 July 1971, idem, Series A, vol. 13, p. 39. König case; Judgment of 28 June 1978, idem, Series A, vol. 27, p. 30.

20. Ringeisen judgment, ibid.Kaplan case, Report of 17 07 1980, Decisions and Reports, vol. 21, pp. 26–27Google Scholar.

21. Ringeisen judgment, ibid. The Commission was still of a different opinion in its report in that case (supra n. 19, pp. 71–72), but followed the Court in later cases: see Kaplan report, supra n. 20, pp. 26–27.

22. Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, supra n. 18, pp. 20–21.

23. Ibid. pp. 21–22. Followed by the Commission in the Albert and Le Compte case, Report of 14 December 1981, para. 70.

24. König judgment, supra n. 19, p. 32. Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, supra n. 18, p. 22.

25. As recorded in the Commission's Report of 8 October 1983, paras. 43–45.

26. Ibid., paras. 60–65.

27. Ibid., paras. 88–100; supra n. 9, pp. 23–26.

28. Dissenting opinion attached to the Report, paras. 8–19; ibid., pp. 36–39.

29. Judgment of 23 October 1985, supra n. 14, p. 16.

30. Report, para. 91 and dissenting opinion, para. 2; supra n. 9, pp. 24 and 34 respectively.

31. Cour/Misc (85) 30, p. 3 (Mr. Danelius for the majority) and p. 8 (Mr. Melchior for the minority).

32. Judgment, paras. 32–36; supra n. 14, pp. 14–16.

33. See the joint dissenting opinion attached to the Judgment, ibid., p. 21.

34. For the doctrine in the Netherlands, see, among many others, the authors mentioned by Benthem, Commission's Report para. 53, and the Groningen study, ibid. para. 54.

35. See the Commission's Report, paras. 47–55.

36. Ibid., paras. 75–80.

37. Ibid., para. 101; supra n. 9, p. 26.

38. See their separate opinions attached to the Commission's Report; ibid., pp. 30–32 and 33 respectively.

39. Report, para. 102; ibid., p. 26.

40. See the dissenting opinion attached to the Commission's Report, paras. 26–28; ibid., pp. 41–43.

41. Judgment, paras. 40–44; supra n. 14, pp. 17–18.

42. See his declaration attached to the judgment, ibid., p. 20.

43. Supra n. 31, p. 3.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid., p. 8.

46. Judgment, para. 35; supra n. 14, p. 16.

47. Cf., Drzemczewski, A. and Warbrick, C. in their 1985 survey of the practice under the European Convention, Yearbook of European Law (1985) pp. 423–445 at p. 428Google Scholar: ‘the deviations of the Medical Disciplinary cases and the peculiarities of the Austrian contract cases have so distorted the case-law as to put it clearly out of reach’.

48. On the objective character, see van Dijk, P. and van Hoof, G.J.H., op.cit. n. 16, pp. 31–32Google Scholar.

49. Drzemczewski, and Warbrick, , loc.cit. n. 47, p. 428Google Scholar.

50. Thus van Buuren, P.J.J., ‘De reikwijdte van “burgerlijke rechten en verplichtingen” in Artikel 6 Europees Verdrag en het Kroonberoep’ [‘The Scope of “Civil Rights and Obligations” in Article 6 European Convention and Appeal to the Crown’], Kroonberoep en artikel 6 ECRM (1986) pp. 17–24 at pp. 20 and 23Google Scholar.

51. Dissenting opinion attached to the Report, para. 9; supra n. 9, p. 36. In his presentation of the minority's view before the Court, Mr. Melchior amended the last five words to read: ‘Rights relating to any other activity which is not absolutely prohibited by law’; supra n. 31, p. 10.

52. On this, see van Dijk, P., Judicial Review of Governmental Action and the Requirement of an Interest to Sue (1980) pp. 178–190Google Scholar. A ‘substantive approach’ based upon this distinction was proposed by Buergenthal, T. and Kewenig, W., ‘Zum Begriff der Civil Rights in Artikel 6 Absatz 1 der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention’, Archiv des Völkerrechts (1966/1967) pp. 393–411 at p. 404Google Scholar.

53. Dissenting opinion attached to the Report, para. 11; supra n. 9, pp. 37–38.

54. Drzemczewski, and Warbrick, , loc.cit. n. 47, p. 428Google Scholar.

55. Dissenting opinion, para. 14; supra n. 9, p. 37.

56. Feldbrugge v. The Netherlands, Report of 9 May 1984, and Deumeland v Federal Republic of Germany, Report of 9 May 1984. See, on the one hand, the concurring opinion of Mr. Frowein, and the dissenting opinion of Mr. Melchior, on the other.

57. See n. 24 supra.

58. See, especially, Vélu, J., ‘Le problème de l'application aux juridictions administratives, des règles de la Convention européene des droits de l'homme relatives à la publicité des audiences et des jugements’, Revue de Droit international et de Droit comparé (1961) pp. 129–171Google Scholar, and Newman, F. C., ‘Natural Justice, Due Process and the New International Covenants on Human Rights; Prospectus’, Public Law (1967) pp. 274–313Google Scholar. See also Buergenthal and Kewenig, loc.cit. n. 52.

59. Vélu, ibid., pp. 153–154; Newman, ibid. pp. 301–302 and 304–309.

60. Vélu, ibid., pp. 150–152 and 154–156; Newman, ibid., pp. 304–305.

61. See supra the text accompanying nn. 17 and 18.

62. Klass case, Judgment of 6 09 1978, ECHR, Series A, vol. 28, p. 25Google Scholar.

63. Delcourt case, Judgment of 17 01 1970, ECHR, Series A, vol. 11, p. 15Google Scholar.

64. In his submissions in the proceedings before the Commission Mr. Benthem referred to publications by Wiarda, Hagen, Alkema and Kan; para. 53 of the Report.

65. See, also, the declaration by Dubbink, Judge, supra n. 14, p. 20Google Scholar.

66. The discussion is here restricted to action in the legislative field. In the meantime the situation has been remedied by the ordinary courts receiving appeals against the Royal Decrees adopted in those Crown appeal procedures where Article 6(1) was considered to be applicable. See HR 12 December 1986, RvdW 1987, No. 6. See de Jong, B.F., ‘Een consequentie van het Benthem-arrest voor de rechtspraktijk’ [‘A Consequence of the Benthem Judgment for Legal Practice’], Nederlands Juristenblad (1986) pp. 812–815Google Scholar; Hoogenboom, T., ‘De gevolgen van het arrest-Benthem in de fase voorafgaand aan wettelijke maatregelen’ [‘The Consequences of the Benthem Judgment pending Legislative Measures’], Kroonberoep en artikel 6 ECRM (1986) pp. 25–38Google Scholar.

67. Proceedings of the Second Chamber 1985–1986, no. 19 497, Nos. 1 and 2.

68. Explanatory Memorandum, ibid., No. 3, pp. 5–6.

69. See Art. 6 of the Bill, and the Explanatory Memorandum, ibid., pp. 6–9. The review by the Division will be restricted to the grounds for unlawfulness as laid down in Article 8 of the Administrative Jurisdiction Act: (1) violation of the law, (2) misuse of power [détournement de pouvoir], (3) manifest unreasonableness, and (4) violation of any of the other principles of good administration; Art. 2 of the Bill.

70. See Art. 5(1) of the Bill.

71. See Art. 1(1) of the Bill.

72. Explanatory Memorandum, supra n. 68, p. 3.

73. Advice by the Council of State, supra n. 67, no. B, pp. 5–6Google Scholar. See also Ballin, E.M.H. Hirsch in his comments on the Benthem Judgment, Administratiefrechtelijke Beslissingen (1986) no. 1Google Scholar. The same view was expressed by Koeman, N.S.J., ‘De Tijdelijke Wet Kroongeschillen’ [‘The Temporary Crown Litigation Act’], Nederlands Juristenblad (1986) pp. 801–804 at pp. 801–802Google Scholar. For a different opinion, see de Haan, P., ‘Het Kroonberoep inzake het bestemmingsplan: een strijd in Straatsburg waard’ [‘Crown Appeal against a Zoning Scheme: Worthwhile for Litigation in Strasbourg’], Nederlands Juristenblad (1986) pp. 873–876Google Scholar.

74. Thus, also, Koeman, ibid., and the Netherlands Jurists’ Committee for Human Rights (NJCM), NJCM-Bulletin (1986) pp. 474–476.

75. Thus also Polak, J.M. in his summing-up of a colloquium on the subject in Kroonberoep en Artikel 6 ECRM (1986) p. 70Google Scholar, where he points to the fact that the applicability of Article 6(1) in these cases depends on the factual situation of each individual case and is difficult to foresee in an abstract sense.

76. In his article, Koeman rightly points to the fact that the Crown still has powers other than the settlement of disputes, which may also raise the issue of conformity with Art. 6(1), e.g., the power of final approval of expropriation decisions taken by municipal authorities. Here, however, it is not the Crown procedure that has to be reviewed for its conformity with Art. 6(1), since there is no ‘contestation’ [dispute] in the sense of that provision involved, and consequently Art. 6(1) is not applicable here. It is the refusal by the Dutch courts to receive appeals against these Crown decisions which might violate Art. 6. See HR 17 April 1974, Administratiefrechtelijke Beslissingen (1974), No. 276Google Scholar.

77. See the comments by members of the Division of Administrative Law and Public Administration of Groningen University, ‘Tijdelijke Wet Kroongeschillen hinkt op twee gedachten’ [‘Temporary Crown Litigation Act Jumps between Two Opinions’], Nederlands Juristenblad (1986) pp. 805–809Google Scholar. To a certain extent and in a more indirect way the same holds true even now for the Judicial Division, since its members also take part in the general advisory function of the Council of State. For a firm, negative, opinion on this, see van Maarseveen, H., ‘Is de Raad van State te handhaven?’ [‘Can the Council of State Be Maintained?’] Nederlands Juristenblad (1986) p. 639Google Scholar. One might also argue that the fact that, under the new procedure, the Division will still receive official reports from the Minister concerned (Art. 4 of the Bill) weakens its impartiality. However, in the Benthem case the dissenting minority of the Commission did not find this to be the case, since the Division is not bound by the Reports; dissenting opinion, para. 26. In its advice concerning the Bill the Council of State proposes to give an independent status to the experts who prepare the official reports; supra n. 73, p. 10.

78. See Koeman, , loc.cit. n. 73, p. 804Google Scholar, and the Groningen, comments, loc.cit. n. 77, pp. 807–808Google Scholar. These further amendments, however, are not required by Art. 6(1) since, according to the Court's case law, a limited legality review is sufficient; Asingdane case, Judgment of 28 05 1985, ECHR, Series A, vol. 93, pp. 24–26Google Scholar.

79. For a comparison and evaluation, see van Buuren, P.J.J. et al. , Arob-beroep en Kroonberoep [Appeal to the Judicial Division and Crown Appeal] (1981)Google Scholar. These authors reach the conclusion that the differences in scope and effects of the review by the two Divisions in the present procedures is not as spectacular as is often assumed. In the same direction see the Council of State in its advice concerning the Bill, , supra n. 7, p. 14Google Scholar.

80. Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment, supra n. 18, p. 23.

81. For details on the systems in Great Britain, France and the FRG, see Van Dijk, , op.cit. n. 52, pp. 37–47, 117–130, and 155–170 respectivelyGoogle Scholar.