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)