Information Note on the Court’s case-law 22
September 2000
Van Vlimmeren and Van Ilverenbeek v. the Netherlands - 25989/94
Judgment 26.9.2000 [Section I]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Reasonable time
Length of civil proceedings: violation
Article 41
Just satisfaction
Late submission of claims for just satisfaction: claims dismissed as out of time
Facts: The applicants cultivated land which was regularly flooded after works had been carried out in connection with a land consolidation project. In August 1991 the applicants informed the Land Development Commission that they held it liable for the damage and in 1993 they brought proceedings for compensation. The Regional Court rejected their claims as inadmissible: departing from its previous case-law, it held that the question of liability could not be determined in such proceedings and that the applicants would have to wait until the list of financial settlements had been deposited. The applicants submitted their claim in November 1995 after the list had been deposited. After a hearing, the Regional Court found in January 1997 that the Land Development Commission was liable and experts were subsequently appointed to determine the extent of the damage. The proceedings are still pending.
Law: Article 6 § 1 – Even if proceedings are dealt with expeditiously once they get underway, a reasonable time may still have been exceeded if an individual was unable for a considerable time to put his claims before a tribunal without sufficiently weighty and pertinent reasons for that delay. It is not in dispute that the relevant period began in August 1991 and that the proceedings are still pending. When the applicants’ claims were not examined in the initial proceedings, access to court became dependent on the list of financial settlements being deposited, an event beyond their control. In fact, their claims were first referred to a tribunal over five years after they had first held the Land Development Commission liable. Moreover, the nature of a land consolidation project did not prevent an earlier examination of the claims – in particular, any complexity lay in determining the extent of the damage rather than in the question of liability. While some delays may be attributed to the applicants, these are not of such a nature as to detract from the fact that the applicants had to wait until the end of 1996 before they were able to put their claims to a court. This situation is hard to reconcile with the need to render justice with the effectiveness and credibility required by the Convention.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – No memorial on the merits was submitted on behalf of the applicants and no claim for just satisfaction was submitted until a late stage. The time allowed appears sufficient and the claims must be dismissed as out of time.
© 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