Background
Dina Schoonbeek and Albert Johan Veldsink challenged orders by the municipality of Hardenberg requiring them, subject to penalty payments, to remove modular building units from their land for violating the applicable zoning plan. After the Overijssel Regional Court dismissed their appeal, they brought a further appeal before the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State.
The applicants ultimately prevailed, but the Administrative Jurisdiction Division declined to reimburse their legal expenses in full. Under the Netherlands’ flat-rate system, they received EUR 3,795 for costs incurred in the appeal and further-appeal proceedings, plus EUR 439 in court fees. They complained to the European Court of Human Rights that having to bear the balance of their substantially higher legal fees restricted their right of access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The Court’s Holding
The Court unanimously held that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1. It accepted that the refusal to reimburse the applicants’ full legal costs restricted their right of access to a court, but found that the restriction pursued the legitimate aims of limiting public expenditure and reducing the administrative courts’ workload through default cost rules.
The restriction was proportionate in the circumstances. Unlike earlier cases in which successful litigants received no reimbursement, the applicants received a partial award under a predictable system. Individuals generally were not liable for the State’s costs if unsuccessful; legal aid could cover costs for qualifying litigants; the applicants had not demonstrated resulting financial hardship; and domestic courts could depart from the flat rates in exceptional circumstances. Article 6 did not require courts to determine in every administrative case whether privately agreed lawyers’ fees were reasonable and necessary.
Key Takeaways
- A flat-rate costs system may restrict access to a court without violating Article 6 § 1 if it does not impair the right’s very essence and remains proportionate.
- Limiting public expenditure and avoiding individualized costs assessments that burden administrative courts are legitimate aims.
- Partial reimbursement, predictable rules, legal-aid availability, protection from adverse State costs, and judicial discretion to address exceptional cases supported the finding of proportionality.
Why It Matters
The judgment distinguishes cases in which successful litigants received no reimbursement at all. Article 6 does not guarantee full recovery of actual legal fees after successful administrative litigation, and States retain a margin of appreciation in designing costs regimes.
The practical effect of a costs rule remains decisive. Courts must assess whether the financial burden in the particular case undermined effective access to justice, rather than determining the Convention compatibility of the costs system only in the abstract.