Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 121
July 2009
Stagno v. Belgium - 1062/07
Judgment 7.7.2009 [Section II]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Access to court
Operation of time-bar as a result of the running of the limitation period during the claimant’s minority: violation
Facts: When their father died, the two applicants, who were minors at the time, and several other descendants were paid a sum of money by an insurance company as the beneficiaries of their father’s life insurance. Their mother, being the statutory administrator of her children’s property, deposited the money in savings accounts that were emptied within less than a year. On coming of age, the applicants each brought an action against their mother and against the insurance company. They later dropped the claim against their mother after entering into an agreement. The court declared their action against the company inadmissible on the ground that the three-year limitation period was applicable, regardless of the capacity of the parties, to any claim arising from an insurance policy. The court of appeal also rejected their argument that, since they had been minors at the time, it had been legally impossible for them to act. An appeal on points of law was also dismissed on the grounds that the aim pursued by the limitation period, namely to avoid the disappearance of evidence and means of verification, could not be fulfilled if it were open to insured persons or their beneficiaries to bring a claim many years after the event on which it was based. The applicants argued that they should not be penalised for failing to apply, at the ages of 9 and 10, for the appointment of a special guardian, and that they had found themselves de facto in a situation where they had no legal representative through whom they could have asserted their rights. The Court of Cassation found that it was not appropriate to allow different treatment for persons without legal representation.
Law: Statutory limitation periods pursued the legitimate aim of ensuring legal certainty, as a time-bar on claims protected potential defendants from belated complaints and meant that the courts would not have to give judgments based on evidence that had become uncertain or incomplete with the passing of time. The courts had thus held that the limitation period also ran against minors, and put the interests of the insurance companies first. However, it had been practically impossible for the applicants to defend their property rights against the company before reaching their majority, and by the time they did come of age, their claim against the company had become time-barred. Furthermore, the fact that the applicants had taken legal action against their mother then dropped the claim should not, in principle, have had any incidence on their right to file a claim against the insurance company and to have their claim decided on the merits. Especially considering that the primary liability lay with the insurance company, while the mother’s liability was secondary. The strict application of a statutory limitation period, without taking into account the particular circumstances of the case, had thus prevented the applicants from using a remedy that in principle was available to them. That limitation on their right of access to a court was disproportionate in relation to the aim of guaranteeing legal certainty and the proper administration of justice.
Conclusion: violation (six votes to one).
Article 41 – EUR 3,000 to each applicant in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© 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