Communicated on 26 May 2015
THIRD SECTION
Application no. 47367/09
Nico LACROIX
against the Netherlands
lodged on 28 August 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Nico Lacroix, is a Netherlands national, who was born in 1954 and lives in Breda. He is a dentist by profession.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. In November 1994 the applicant was involved in a car accident for which another party was responsible. The accident caused him injuries and reduced his earning power. Liability was accepted by the other party’s third-party liability insurer, an insurance company.
4. A dispute arose between the applicant and the insurance company about the percentage by which the applicant’s earning capacity was reduced and about the measure in which the applicant’s failure to wear a seat belt might have contributed to his injuries.
5. On 19 November 2001 the applicant summoned the insurance company before the Leeuwarden Regional Court (at that time, arrondissementsrechtbank), claiming pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and interest.
6. On 2 July 2003 the Regional Court (by this time, rechtbank) gave an interlocutory judgment announcing its intention to order an expert report and inviting the parties to express themselves on the experts to be appointed and the scope of their investigation.
7. At the request of the parties, the case was adjourned for friendly settlement negotiations. These, however, proved unfruitful and litigation was resumed in January 2004.
8. On 30 June 2004 the Regional Court gave a second interlocutory judgment appointing and instructing two experts.
9. The parties did not accept the conclusions of the experts. The Regional Court itself agreed that the expert reports left questions open. Accordingly, on 17 August 2005 the Regional Court gave a third interlocutory judgment commissioning an additional report by a third expert and requiring one of the two original experts to clarify his findings.
10. On 30 August 2006 the Regional Court gave a fourth interlocutory judgment finding that the information available was not yet sufficient to reach a sound conclusion and announcing the intention to appoint a fourth expert. The parties were invited to make proposals in this regard.
11. The parties having submitted their proposals in September 2006, the Regional Court on 18 October 2006 gave a fifth interlocutory judgment appointing a fourth expert and defining the scope of his investigations.
12. On 27 August 2008 the applicant wrote to the Regional Court asking for the final judgment to be delivered as soon as possible.
13. It appears that the Regional Court further adjourned the case.
14. On 16 January 2009 the applicant wrote to the President of the Regional Court complaining, in so far as relevant to the case before the Court, about the length of the proceedings. He invoked Article 6 of the Convention. The Regional Court acknowledged receipt of the applicant’s complaint on 20 January 2009.
15. On 4 March 2009 the Regional Court gave a sixth interlocutory judgment finding that the applicant’s failure to wear a seat belt had contributed to his injuries, so that a corresponding part of the resulting damage (assessed at 40%) was to be borne by him. It then found that there was a need to appoint a further expert to make precise calculations of the applicant’s earning capacity and invited the parties to make proposals in this regard.
16. On 11 March 2009 the applicant wrote to the Minister of Justice (minister van justitie) demanding compensation in an amount of 1,000 euros (EUR) for each year that the proceedings had taken until then, plus an additional EUR 2,000 to reflect what he considered was the considerable interest involved in the case. On the basis of a length of 7 years and 4 months up to that point, his claim thus came to EUR 9,333.
17. On 19 March 2009 the Acting President of the Regional Court gave its decision on the applicant’s complaint described in paragraph 14 above. As relevant to the case before the Court, it declared the complaint about the length of the proceedings well-founded. The applicant forwarded a copy of this document to the Minister of Justice two days later.
18. On 23 April 2009 the Minister of Justice informed the applicant that his letter of 11 March 2009 had been forwarded to the Council for the Judiciary (Raad voor de Rechtspraak).
19. On 27 April 2009 the applicant wrote to the Council for the Judiciary reiterating the claim he had submitted to the Minister of Justice.
B. Relevant domestic law
20. On 22 April 2009, the Deputy Minister of Justice (Staatssecretaris van Justitie) adopted “Rules of the Deputy Minister of Justice, no. 5599506/09, giving the Council for the Judiciary mandate and authority as regards requests for compensation for failure to decide within a reasonable time” (Regeling van de Staatssecretaris van Justitie van 22 april 2009, nr. 5599506/09, houdende verlening van mandaat en machtiging aan de Raad voor de rechtspraak inzake verzoeken tot schadevergoeding wegens overschrijding van de redelijke termijn), Official Gazette (Staatscourant) 2009, no. 81. In their relevant part, they provided as follows:
Section 1
“The Council for the Judiciary shall have mandate and authority to decide on behalf of the Minister of Justice and standing to act in cases in which the Minister of Justice is called by a tribunal to submit a defence against a request for compensation for failure by one or more tribunals in judicial proceedings to decide within a reasonable time.”
21. On 26 January 2012 the Deputy Minister’s Rules were withdrawn and replaced by the “Rules of the Minister of Security and Justice, no. 5723477/12, giving the Council for the Judiciary mandate and authority as regards requests for compensation for failure to decide within a reasonable time” (Regeling van de Minister van Veiligheid en Justitie, nr. 5723477/12, houdende verlening van mandaat en machtiging aan de Raad voor de rechtspraak inzake verzoeken tot schadevergoeding wegens overschrijding van de redelijke termijn), Official Gazette 2012, no. 1933 (date of entry into force 2 February 2012). In their relevant part, they provide as follows:
Section 2
“1. The Council for the Judiciary shall have mandate and authority to:
a. decide requests for compensation for failure by one or more tribunals in judicial proceedings to decide within a reasonable time;
b. decide objections (bezwaarschriften) against the decisions referred to under a;
c. act in cases where the Minister is called by a tribunal to submit a defence concerning the decisions referred to under a or b.
2. The Council for the Judiciary shall have mandate and authority and standing to decide and act on behalf of the Minister of Justice in cases in which the Minister of Justice is called by a tribunal to submit a defence against a request for compensation for failure by one or more tribunals in judicial proceedings to decide within a reasonable time. ...”
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings before the Regional Court.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. What is currently the state of the proceedings:
(a) between the applicant and the insurance company on the merits; and
(b) before the Council for the Judiciary on the length of the proceedings?
The Court would wish to be provided with copies of any relevant judgments or decisions not yet in its file.
2. Did the applicant at any time have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
3. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
4. 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?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy