CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 9 mars 1987

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  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)