THIRD SECTION

Application no. 19165/11 ONROEREND GOED MAATSCHAPPIJ DE LINDE GROESBEEK B.V. and O thers against the Netherlands lodged on 17 March 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr T.E.P.A. Lam, a lawyer practising in Nijmegen.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.

On 24 July 2000 the municipality of Groesbeek sought a declaratory judgment ( verklaring voor recht ) from the Arnhem Regional Court ( arrondissementsr echtbank ) , to the effect that it was the owner of certain p arcels of land in the municipality of Groesbeek . The first, second and third applicants were the defendants in those proceedings. The Regional Court judged on 1 March 2001 that the municipality was not the owner of the contested parcels of land since it had not , after the parcels had come into their possession in 1995, registered the deed of allotment ( akte van toedeling , “the deed”) yet. The municipali ty did not appeal the judgment.

On 25 April 2001 all seven applicants sought a declaratory judgment from the Arnhem Regional Court , to the effect that they were the owners of the contested parcels of land. On 28 March 2002 the Regional Court rejected the applicants ’ claims as being inadmissible.

The applicants appealed the Regional Court ’ s judgment on 14 May 2002 and increased their claim, requesting compensation because, if the municipality had become owner of the parcels of land (through the registering of the deed), it had unjustly enriched itself since the applicants had become the owners of the parcels in the 1990s through acquisitive prescription ( verkrijgende verjaring ) . The municipality objected to the unjust enrichment claim.

On 18 May 2004 the Court of Appeal took an order ( rolbeschikking ) rejecting the municipality ’ s objection.

The Court of Appeal delivered an interlocutory decision on 22 February 2005, allowing the applicants to produce evidence of the fact that they had been the owners of the parcels of land before these parcels had come into the possession of the municipality when it registered the deed in 2003.

On 30 August 2005 witnesses were heard by the Court of Appeal.

On 15 November 2005 the Court of Appeal rejected the municipality ’ s request to allow early appeal in cassation.

On 26 January 2006 and 13 October 2006 more witnesses were heard by the Court of Appeal.

On 5 June 2007 the applicants submitted their final statement after the hearing of witnesses ( conclusie na enquête ), and the municipality submitted their memorandum ( memorie na enquête ) on 23 October 2007.

On 11 November 2008 the Court of Appeal delivered its final judgment awarding the applicants damages.

The municipality lodged an appeal on points of law ( beroep in cassatie ) against the judgment on 4 February 2009.

After a hearing on 27 November 2011, the Supreme Court ( Hoge Raad ) granted the municipality ’ s appeal on 24 September 2010, quashing the impugned judgment and denying the applicants ’ claim for damages.

COMPLAINT

The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. They claim that the starting point of the proceedings that should be taken into account concerning the first, second and third applicants was 24 July 2000, and 25 April 2001 as regards the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh applicants.

Appendix

N o

Applicant

Date of birth

Place of residence

ONROEREND GOED MAATSCHAPPIJ DE LINDE GROESBEEK B.V.

Groesbeek

J.E.M. DERKS

04/04/1967

Groesbeek

G.A.J. DERKS

30/03/1935

Groesbeek

L.L. HOOGSTRATEN

16/11/1938

Groesbeek

A.M.D. POUWELS-ALBERS

27/08/1961

Groesbe ek

M.L.A. WIJNHOVEN-ALBERS

06/07/1963

Groesbeek

M.G.L.M. VOS -ALBERS

24/05/1966

Hilversum

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1 . Have the applicants exhausted effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention , in respect of their complaint under Article 6 § 1 that the civil proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time ?

2 . Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

3. Did the applicants at any time have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, for their complaint under Article 6 § 1 that the civil proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time?