Search
document

Document text Analytics

VAN HAL INTERNATIONAL PIERSHIL B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 11073/84 • ECHR ID: 001-45399

Document date: March 9, 1987

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

VAN HAL INTERNATIONAL PIERSHIL B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 11073/84 • ECHR ID: 001-45399

Document date: March 9, 1987

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 11073/84

VAN HAL INTERNATIONAL PIERSHIL B.V

against

the NETHERLANDS

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 9 March 1987)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION .................................... 1

Part I : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ............... 3

Part II : SOLUTION REACHED ..................... 4

&_INTRODUCTION&S

1. This report relates to Application No. 11073/84 introduced by

Van Hal International Piershil B.V. against the Netherlands on

25 May 1984 under Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of

Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The application was registered

on 6 August 1984.

The applicant company was represented by Mr. L.J. Den Hollander,

a lawyer practising in Middelharnis.

The Government were represented by their Agent,

Miss D.S. van Heukelom of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.

2. On 5 December 1985, the European Commission of Human Rights

declared admissible both the applicant company's first complaint

concerning the right of access to court as a result of land

consolidation works, and its second complaint that the remedy which

might have been available to it differs substantially from normal

civil proceedings.*

The Commission then proceeded to carry out its task under

Article 28 of the Convention which provides as follows:

"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition

referred to it:

(a) it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts,

undertake together with the representatives of the parties

an examination of the petition and, if need be, an

investigation, for the effective conduct of which the

States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities,

after an exchange of views with the Commission;

(b) it shall place itself at the disposal of the parties

concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement

of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as

defined in this Convention."

------------

* This decision is public and can be obtained from the

Commission's Secretary.

3. The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly

settlement of the case and on 9 March 1987 it adopted this Report

which, in accordance with Article 30 of the Convention, is confined to

a brief statement of the facts and of solution reached. The following

members of the Commission were present when the Report was adopted:

MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President

F. ERMACORA

M. A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

G. TENEKIDES

S. TRECHSEL

B. KIERNAN

J. C. SOYER

H. G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

J. CAMPINOS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. F. MARTINEZ.

Part 1

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

4. The applicant is a company with limited liability under Dutch

law with its registered office at Piershil, the Netherlands.

5. The application concerns the judicial procedure by which one

can claim damages in compensation for an interference with property

rights where damage is caused by works carried out in the course of

land consolidation.

6. The Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) decided on 12 February 1984 that

the applicant company could not introduce a civil action for damages

against the local land consolidation committee (Plaatselijke Commissie

voor de Ruilverkaveling) because the local committee did not have

legal personality and could not be considered as an organ of another

institution with legal personality.

7. The Government nevertheless paid damages to the applicant but

ordered him to pay the costs incurred by the State as a result of the

proceedings.

8. Before the Commission the applicant company complained that it

had been denied a judicial procedure by which it could claim damages

in compensation for the interference with its property rights. The

applicant company claimed that the only remedy available to it (namely

the procedure under Section 98 et seq., Land Consolidation Act)

differs from the normal judicial procedure, in such a way that it does

not satisfy the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention.

9. The application was introduced on 25 May 1984 and registered

on 6 August 1984.

On 4 March 1985, the Commission decided to give notice of the

application to the respondent Government and invite them to submit

written observations on admissibility and merits.

The Government's observation were submitted on 29 May 1985,

the applicant company's observations in reply on 26 June 1985.

10. The Commission declared the application admissible on

5 December 1985.

Part II

SOLUTION REACHED

11. Following its decision on the admissibility of the

application, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the

parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance

with Article 28 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to

submit any proposals they wished to make.

12. In accordance with its usual practice the Commission

instructed its Secretary to contact the parties for this purpose.

Following an exchange of correspondence channelled through the

Secretary of the Commission the Agent of the Government, by letter of

26 January 1987, made the following declaration:

"I have the honour to inform you that the Netherlands

Government is still prepared to accept the following

friendly settlement in this case:

a. The Netherlands Government will waive the legal costs,

amounting to f 33.314,-;

b. The Netherlands Government will settle the account for

expert's fees, amounting to f 18.760,-."

13. The applicant company's representative, by letter of

9 February 1987, submitted the following declaration on behalf

of the applicant company:

"With reference to Application No. 11073/84 pending

before the Commission of Human Rights and in view of

the declaration made by the Netherlands Government on

26 January 1987, I hereby accept, on behalf of Van Hal

International Piershil B.V., the offer contained in

that declaration and declare the Application No. 11073/84

to be settled.

My declaration is made in view of the settlement within

the meaning of Article 28 (b) of the European Convention

on Human Rights in the proceedings concerning the

application."

14. On 9 March 1987 the Commission noted that the parties had

reached agreement regarding the terms of settlement. The Commission

found, having regard to Article 28 (b) of the Convention, that a

friendly settlement of the present application had been secured on

the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant