Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 156
October 2012
Ramaer and Van Willigen v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 34880/12
Decision 23.10.2012 [Section III]
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1
Possessions
Legislative change depriving non-residents of certain entitlements under health care insurance contracts: inadmissible
Facts – The applicants are Netherlands nationals in receipt of Netherlands old-age pensions. They reside in Belgium and Spain respectively. Until 1 January 2006 they had the benefit of Netherlands private health care insurance which entitled them to health care according to Netherlands standards. Following the entry into force of the Health Care Insurance Act on that date, however, the system was changed and, by virtue of Council of the European Communities Regulation (EEC) 1408/71, the applicants became entitled to health care according to the basic health care regimes of their countries of residence. Health care up to the Netherlands standard has, in the applicants’ submission, become much more expensive: the applicants have to take out additional private insurance, and some health care expenses are no longer refundable.
Law – Article 1 of Protocol No. 1: The applicants had no “possession” within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. Their entitlements under their former contracts of insurance had been extinguished when the contracts were terminated ex lege as from 1 January 2006. The applicants had not alleged that claims arising from their insurance companies and existing on or before that date were extinguished or reduced and their expectations were not based on a legal provision or a legal act such as a judicial decision. Rather, they were based on the hope that their insurance contracts would be continued, or renewed, on terms no less favourable than those they had enjoyed previously. In that connection, the Court reiterated that there was a difference between a hope, however understandable, of securing an asset, and a legitimate expectation, which must be more concrete and based on a legal provision or act.
Conclusion: inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae).
Article 1 of Protocol No. 12: The Court accepted that place of residence constituted “an aspect of personal status” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 and that the entry into force of the new health care legislation had created a situation in which the applicants were treated differently from Netherlands residents, and also from each other depending on their respective countries of residence. The applicants were not, however, in a relevantly similar position to those comparator groups. As was apparent from its drafting history, the Health Care Insurance Act was intended to provide an essentially territorial system for all persons lawfully resident in the Netherlands. As a result of their choice to reside in other European Union countries the applicants were entitled in their respective countries of residence to health care under the same regime as the local population. The country concerned was reimbursed for any health care it provided by the Netherlands, which in turn had the right to require the applicants to contribute. Any complementary health care insurance was optional. The position was thus similar to that in Carson and Others in which the Court had found that resident and non-resident pensioners were not in a relevantly similar position.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
The Court also declared inadmissible as being manifestly ill-founded the applicants’ complaints under Article 14 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (on the grounds of its finding that the latter provision was inapplicable) and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
(See Carson and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 42184/05, 16 March 2010, Information Note no. 128)
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy