X. v. THE NETHERLANDS - 2988/66 [1967] ECHR 31 (31 May 1967)

 X. v. THE NETHERLANDS - 2988/66 [1967] ECHR 31 (31 May 1967) [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] European Court of Human Rights You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> X. v. THE NETHERLANDS - 2988/66 [1967] ECHR 31 (31 May 1967) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1967/2988_66.html Cite as: [1967] ECHR 31 [ New search ] [ Contents list ] [ Help ] X. v. THE NETHERLANDS - 2988/66 [1967] ECHR 31 (31 May 1967) THE FACTS Whereas the facts presented by the Applicant may be summarised as follows: The Applicant is a Netherlands citizen, born in 1939. He is a farmer and merchant residing at Barneveld. He states that by reason of his religious beliefs he has objections of conscience to any form of insurance. According to his religious convictions, prosperity and adversity are meted out to human beings by God and it is not permissible to attempt in advance to prevent or reduce the effects of possible disasters. Consequently, the Applicant does not find it possible to accept any systems of compulsory insurance. In the present case, he refers to one such system introduced by the Act of 30th May, 1963 on Liability Insurance for Motor Vehicles (Wet aansprakelijkheidsverzekoring motorrijtuigen). According to the provisions of this Act, every user of a motor vehicle must be insured against third party liability. As in other Netherlands legislation on compulsory insurance schemes, there are in the Act of 30th May, 1963 special provisions regarding exemption for those who object, on grounds of conscience, to any form of insurance. Persons who are granted exemption under these provisions do not have to pay an insurance premium but are required to pay an equivalent sum of money as income tax and the Applicant states that these tax payments serve, in fact, to cover the same risks as the insurance system is designed to cover. Consequently, there is not, in the Applicant's opinion, any real exemption, and he states that the German term "Etikettenschwindel" (false labelling) has sometimes been used to describe this procedure. The Applicant concludes that the provisions regarding exemption are not acceptable and that, therefore, his objections of conscience also concern the exemption system provided for by the Act. As the Applicant is a merchant, he urgently needs a car for his business. On ... 1965, he was convicted by the Magistrate's Court (Kantonrechter) of Harderwijk for driving a motor vehicle without an insurance and he was sentenced to a fine of 50 guilders or, in default, 10 days' detention. The motor vehicle was confiscated with the order that the proceeds from the sale of the vehicle should be handed over to the Applicant. Finally, the Applicant was also disqualified from driving motor vehicles for a period of six months. On appeal, this judgment was confirmed, on ... 1966, by the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Zwolle. The Applicant lodged a further appeal (beroep in cassatie) with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), and invoked in particular his objections of conscience to insurance systems. On ... 1966, this appeal was rejected by the Supreme Court. The Applicant alleges that the Supreme Court's decision violates the Convention, in particular its Article 9, since for him one of the practices of his religion and religious beliefs is to abstain from participation in the insurance system concerned. THE LAW Whereas the Applicant complains of the system of compulsory motor insurance introduced by the Netherlands Act of 30th May, 1963; Whereas he objects not only to the primary obligation to participate in the insurance scheme but also to the character of the exemption system provided for in the Act in regard to conscientious objectors; Whereas the Applicant alleges that, as a result of the Act concerned and its application to him, he is the victim of a violation of Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention; Whereas Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention provides as follows: "(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching practice and observance. (2) Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." Whereas the Commission has examined the Application in relation to Article 9 (Art. 9) of the Convention and has had regard to its previous decisions in similar cases (see, in particular, Yearbook V, pages 278 and 286, Collection of Decisions, Volume 18, page 40); Whereas in the present case the question first arises as to whether the facts alleged could be considered to concern "the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" as guaranteed by paragraph (1) of Article 9 (Art. 9-1); Whereas, in so far as this provision is involved, the Commission finds it clear that the Netherlands legislation concerned and its application in the present case are justified under paragraph (2) of Article 9 (Art. 9-2); whereas in this respect the Commission has noted that the purpose of the compulsory motor insurance scheme is to safeguard the rights of third parties who may become victims of motor accidents; and whereas paragraph (2) of Article 9 (Art. 9-2) expressly permits such limitations of the freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs as are necessary in a democratic society "for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"; Whereas it follows that the present Application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph (2) (Art. 27-2), of the Convention. Now therefore the Commission declares this Application inadmissible. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1967/2988_66.html