The Netherlands / Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal / ECLI:NL:CBB:224:225

Partnership (slaughterhouse) v Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Type
Decision
Decision date
26/03/2024
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:NL:CBB:224:225

Харта на основните права на Европейския съюз

  • The Netherlands / Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal / ECLI:NL:CBB:224:225

    Key facts of the case: 

    The Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality has fined a slaughterhouse because it has hurt chicks which would be slaughtered when catching them. This amounts to pain inflicted upon animals, which is prohibited. The fine was € 1,500. The slaughterhouse claims that the fine is too high, because it should be taken into account that they are only a small partnership. They also claim that the fine should be lower because it has taken the Minister too long to impose the fine (more than four years). Article 47 of the Charter, which has been invoked, lays down the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial. Because of this, and because of Dutch law based on this, a remedy should not be disproportionate and a fine should be imposed on a party within a reasonable time.  

    Key legal question raised by the Court: 

    The question is whether the fact that the slaughterhouse is small is an extraordinary circumstance on the basis of which the fine of 1500 euros should be reduced. Moreover, the question is whether the fine should be reduced because it has taken the Minister more than four years to impose it on the slaughterhouse.  

    Outcome of the case: 

    The tribunal held that the slaughterhouse did not give sufficient reasons for the statement that the slaughterhouse was too small to justify the amount of the fine. The fact that it is small, does not amount to a special circumstance on the basis of which the fine is disproportionate and is not sufficient for a reduction of the fine. The fact that it has taken the Minister more than four years to impose the fine, does mean that it should be reduced. This is not a reasonable time, as referred to in Article 47 of the Charter. In punitive cases with proceedings before three institutes, the main principle is that they may not take longer than four years. In this case, it has taken four years and five months. The fine is reduced by 5 percent, as this is the standard for every half year (rounded off to the advantage of the offender) that the period of four years is exceeded. The fine therefore amounts to € 1,425.  The implications of this judgement are that small businesses, in general, should pay as high a fine as larger businesses when they infringe the law. Moreover, it is confirmed that a fine should be reduced when proceedings before three instances take more than four years. The standard is that this is considered to be a reasonable period.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    9.3. The administrative fine imposed on the partnership must be regarded as a punitive sanction. Article 47 of the Charter on the fundamental rights of the European Union (EU Charter) and Article 6 of the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms (ECHR) imply that the courts should assess whether a fine that has been imposed is proportionate, in the specific case, to the seriousness and the culpability of the offence that has been proven. The framework of the amount of fines that have been laid down in law, as in this case, is Article 5:46, paragraph 3, of the General Administrative Act, in which the assessment of proportionality, implied by Article 47 of the EU Charter and Article 6 of the ECHR is implemented (also see the judgements of the Tribunal on 23 April 2019, ECLI:NL:CBB:2019:167 and on 14 June 2022, ECLI:NL:2022:301. Article 5:46, paragraph 3, of the General Administrative Act, lays down the possibility that the Minister imposes a lower fine if an offender sufficiently argues that the imposed fine is too high because of special circumstances. Within that framework, the Minister should judge whether the prescribed fine in the specific case is proportionate to especially the nature and the seriousness of the offence, the degree of culpability of the offender, and, if necessary, the circumstance in which the offence took place.  

    (...)

    Reasonable time

    10.1. Finally, the partnership requested a reduction of the fine because the reasonable time referred to in Article 47 of the EU Charter and Article 6 of the ECHR has been exceeded.  

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    9.3. De aan de maatschap opgelegde bestuurlijke boete is aan te merken als punitieve sanctie. Artikel 47 van het Handvest van de grondrechten van de Europese Unie (EU Handvest) en artikel 6 van het Verdrag tot bescherming van de rechten van de mens en de fundamentele vrijheden (EVRM) brengen mee dat de rechter dient te toetsen of een opgelegde boete in het concrete geval in redelijke verhouding staat tot de ernst en de verwijtbaarheid van de bewezen overtreding. Voor bij wettelijk voorschrift vastgestelde boetebedragen, zoals hier aan de orde, vormt artikel 5:46, derde lid, van de Awb het kader waarin de op artikel 47 van het EU Handvest en artikel 6 van het EVRM gestoelde evenredigheidstoets wordt uitgevoerd (zie ook de uitspraak van het College van 23 april 2019, ECLI:NL:CBB:2019:167 en die van 14 juni 2022, ECLI:NL:CBB:2022:301). Artikel 5:46, derde lid, van de Awb voorziet in de mogelijkheid tot het opleggen van een lagere boete door de minister indien een overtreder aannemelijk maakt dat de opgelegde boete wegens bijzondere omstandigheden te hoog is. Binnen dat kader kan en behoort te worden beoordeeld of de voorgeschreven boete in het concrete geval evenredig is aan met name de aard en ernst van de geconstateerde overtreding, de mate waarin deze aan de overtreder kan worden verweten en, zo nodig, de omstandigheden waaronder de overtreding is begaan. 

    (...)

    Redelijke termijn

    10.1. Tot slot heeft de maatschap verzocht om matiging van de boete wegens overschrijding van de redelijke termijn als bedoeld in artikel 47 van het EU Handvest en artikel 6 van het EVRM.