CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 27 mai 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4CED6078 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.75pt; font-size:10pt } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .s47BA2785 { width:188.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sC53DCA36 { width:100%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; border-collapse:collapse } .sC27E3348 { height:7pt } .s921FAA9F { width:10.78%; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sD35D798C { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sFCE34647 { width:32.64%; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2D93B563 { width:17.9%; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .sCB58F903 { width:18.7%; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s45F30A13 { width:19.96%; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s1D94233A { width:10.78%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74DC3D21 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s439E1B3B { width:32.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s78E29942 { width:17.9%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2432F201 { width:18.7%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB83E99B3 { width:19.96%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3192C8A1 { margin-left:36pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s15A4B0A7 { height:13.35pt } .sA5CE4CD6 { height:14pt } .s5ADC263B { height:26.7pt } .s42625D7A { height:27.35pt } .s73A34C9B { margin-left:36pt; text-indent:-18pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sE4CB1DB5 { width:25.64pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD02F2858 { width:10.78%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sB5A0E6BE { width:32.64%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sDE9C5C34 { width:17.9%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s79196CB0 { width:18.7%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-right:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s22DD2174 { width:19.96%; border-top:0.75pt solid #949494; border-left:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 54749/13 Annie ANEMA-KWINKELENBERG and others against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27 May 2014 as a Chamber composed of:   Alvina Gyulumyan, President,   Ján Šikuta,   Dragoljub Popović,   Luis López Guerra,   Kristina Pardalos,   Johannes Silvis,   Valeriu Griţco, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     A list of applicants is set out in the appendix. The applicants were represented by Mr G.J.H. van Hoof, a lawyer practising in IJsselstein (hereafter also: the applicants’ representative). A.     The circumstances of the case 2.     Before the events complained of, the applicants variously held shares or subordinated bonds (the latter under diverse designations) issued by SNS REAAL N.V., a public limited company ( naamloze vennootschap , “N.V.”) incorporated under Netherlands law, or one or more of its subsidiaries. The events complained of, which concern the expropriation of those shares and subordinated bonds, are set out in Stefania Adorisio and Others against the Netherlands and three other applications (dec), no. 47315/13, 14 January 2014. Appeals against the expropriation decision were dismissed by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division ( Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak ) of the Council of State ( Raad van State ) on 25 February 2013. Proceedings relating to compensation are currently pending before the Supreme Court ( Hoge Raad ). B.     Relevant Court procedure 1.     The Rules of Court 3.     At the time of the proceedings in issue, the Rules of Court, as pertinent, provided as follows (footnotes omitted): Rule 36 – Representation of applicants “1.     Persons, non-governmental organisations or groups of individuals may initially present applications under Article 34 of the Convention themselves or through a representative. ...” Rule 44A – Duty to cooperate with the Court “The parties have a duty to cooperate fully in the conduct of the proceedings and, in particular, to take such action within their power as the Court considers necessary for the proper administration of justice. This duty shall also apply to a Contracting Party not party to the proceedings where such cooperation is necessary.” Rule 45 – Signatures “1.     Any application made under Articles 33 or 34 of the Convention shall be submitted in writing and shall be signed by the applicant or by the applicants’ representative. 2.     Where an application is made by a non-governmental organisation or by a group of individuals, it shall be signed by those persons competent to represent that organisation or group. The Chamber or Committee concerned shall determine any question as to whether the persons who have signed an application are competent to do so. 3.     Where applicants are represented in accordance with Rule 36, a power of attorney or written authority to act shall be supplied by their representative or representatives.” Rule 47 – Contents of an individual application “1.     Any application under Article 34 of the Convention shall be made on the application form provided by the Registry, unless the President of the Section concerned decides otherwise. It shall set out (a)     the name, date of birth, nationality, sex, occupation and address of the applicant; ... and be accompanied by (h)     copies of any relevant documents and in particular the decisions, whether judicial or not, relating to the object of the application. ... 4.     Failure to comply with the requirements set out in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Rule may result in the application not being examined by the Court. 5.     The date of introduction of the application for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention shall as a general rule be considered to be the date of the first communication from the applicant setting out, even summarily, the subject matter of the application, provided that a duly completed application form has been submitted within the time-limits laid down by the Court. The Court may for good cause nevertheless decide that a different date shall be considered to be the date of introduction. ...” 2.     The Practice direction on the institution of proceedings 4.     Clarification of the above Rules, among others, was provided by a Practice direction on the institution of proceedings issued by the President of the Court under Rule 32 of the Rules of Court. At the time of the proceedings here in issue, it read as follows, in its relevant parts and in the redaction in force since 24 June 2009 (footnote omitted): “4.     If an application has not been submitted on the official form or an introductory letter does not contain all the information referred to in Rule 47, the applicant may be required to submit a duly completed form. It must be despatched within eight weeks from the date of the Registry’s letter requesting the applicant to complete and return the form. Failure to comply with this time-limit will have implications for the date of introduction of the application and may therefore affect the applicant’s compliance with the six-month rule contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. 5.     Applicants may file an application by sending it by fax. However, they must despatch the signed original by post within eight weeks from the date of the Registry’s letter referred to in paragraph 4 above. ... 7. On receipt of the first communication setting out the subject-matter of the case, the Registry will open a file, whose number must be mentioned in all subsequent correspondence. Applicants will be informed thereof by letter. They may also be asked for further information or documents. ... 9. Failure to provide further information or documents at the Registry’s request (see paragraph 7) may result in the application not being examined by the Court or being declared inadmissible or struck out of the Court’s list of cases.” COMPLAINTS 5.     The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the procedure followed in connection with the expropriation of their shares or subordinated bonds and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the failure to award them any compensation. They restated the substance of these complaints under Article 13 of the Convention taken together with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 6.     On 21 August 2013 the applicants’ representative contacted the Court’s Registry by fax announcing his intention to lodge an application on behalf of the applicants. 7.     On 28 August 2013 the Court’s Registry acknowledged the receipt of this fax by post. The letter included, inter alia , the following paragraphs (emphasis in the original): “I note that you have not submitted all the information required by Rule 47 §§ 1 and 2 of the Rules of Court. In particular you have not submitted a copy of the original judgment of 25 February 2013 given by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State ) including the annex that is mentioned in the judgment. Moreover, you have not submitted any document from which it is clear on behalf of whom the grounds of appeal were lodged. Finally, you have also not submitted the grounds of appeal for each applicant who was not represented by you in the domestic proceedings. That being so, the case cannot be examined by the Court . You are therefore requested to supplement the application by submitting the missing information and documents before 23 October 2013 . ... I further note that the authority forms submitted by you are copies of the original forms. You are requested to submit for each individual applicant an original authority for representation bearing the applicant’s original signature ( i.e. no copy or scan ). I would draw to your attention that the Court may decide, in the absence of a valid power of attorney, to declare the application inadmissible on the ground that there is no valid application (see Post v. the Netherlands (dec.), 21727/08, 20 January 2009; Kemevuako v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 65938/09, § 22, 1 June 2010; Çetin   v.   Turkey (dec.), no. 10449/08, 13 September 2011; Kaur v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 35864/11, §§ 17-19, 14 May 2012; and Ngendakumana v. the Netherlands (dec.), no. 16380/11, 5 February 2013). I should emphasise that you must send the necessary supplementary documents to the Court within the above period. No extension of this period is possible. Considering the large number of applicants you represent you are further requested to send us as soon as possible and no later than two weeks from the date of the present letter, i.e. 11 September 2013, an e-mail address to which the Registry can send you an excel table for you to complete with your clients’ information. ” 8.     On 9 September 2013 the Court’s Registry received a fax message from the applicants’ representative, stating, inter alia , the following: “Although I made sure that that I included the required information in the three files I did send you by DHL, I will check the entire file again and will get back to you on this soon. For now I comply with the request at the end of your above-mentioned letter and provide you with the e-mail address to which you can send us an excel-table for the completion of the client information.” 9.   On 11 September 2013 the Court’s Registry acknowledged the receipt of this   fax by e-mail and post to the applicants’ representative. The letter included, inter alia , the following paragraphs (emphasis in the original): “You are requested to complete the attached table with information regarding all the applicants and send back the completed table on a CD-ROM or a memory stick before the date indicated in the Court’s previous letter, i.e. 23 October 2013 . Please follow the instructions below: - do not modify the table’s formatting; - complete all fields; - stick a bar code provided by the Court on the CD-ROM/memory stick and the cover page.” 10.     On 15 October 2013 the applicants’ representative submitted a letter enclosing a copy of the original decision of 25 February 2013 given by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State including the annex that was mentioned in that decision, updated lists and sets of authority forms and the grounds of appeal. 11.     On 21 October 2013 the applicants’ representative sent a number of additional authority forms to the Court’s Registry and asked to be contacted by telephone to discuss and clarify the status of one of the applicants, Stichting Obligatiehouders SNS, a foundation ( stichting ) under Netherlands law. 12.     On 25 October 2013 the Court’s Registry called the applicants’ representative by telephone. The applicants’ representative stated that Stichting Obligatiehouders SNS had represented all individual applicants before the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, so that their individual names did not appear on the list annexed to the decision of 25 February 2013. The Court’s Registry again requested the applicants’ representative to submit a list of the individual applicants in the prescribed form of an Excel worksheet. 13.     On 30 October 2013 the Court’s Registry sent a letter to the applicants’ representative which included, inter alia , the following paragraphs (emphasis in the original): “I write to remind you of the request made in our letter of 11 September 2013. The information requested has not yet been received in electronic from. You were requested to submit it by 23 October 2013. Without prejudice to any decision the Court may have to take in the case, I would ask you now to treat this as an urgent matter. I enclose a copy of our letter of 11 September 2013 for your convenience.” 14.     On 17 December 2013 the Court’s Registry acknowledged the receipt of an e-mail of 21 November 2013 and accompanying Excel table. The letter included, inter alia , the following paragraphs: “On 11 September 2013 and 30 October 2013 we wrote to you requesting you, with reference to Rule 47 § 1 of the Rules of Court, to send us full details of the applicants in electronic form. You were sent an empty Excel table which you were instructed to return completed and unmodified, on a psychical medium (i.e. a CD-ROM or a memory stick) marked with one of the identifying stickers sent to you. It is noted that these instructions have not been complied with. I should point out that the purpose in requiring the submission of the applicants’ identifying information in a strictly prescribed electronic format was to enable the applicants to be registered individually in the Court’s administrative database.” 15.     On 3 March 2014 the Court’s Registry received, by registered mail, a memory stick with the table as had been sent to the applicants on 11   September 2013. The number of persons listed as applicants, after correction for 21 persons who would appear to have been named twice, was 143. THE LAW A.     Applicants 16.     In the case of three applicants (one legal person and two natural persons) the letters of authority were photocopies or printouts of faxes or scans which did not bear the original signature of the applicant (or in the case of the legal person, the original signature of a natural person competent to represent it). In respect of these three applicants, the application will not be examined because the requirements set out in Rule   45 have not been met (see paragraph 5 of the Practice direction on institution of proceedings, paragraph 4 above). 17.     The Appendix to this decision lists the remaining 140 natural persons listed on the Excel table as applicants. B.     Complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention 18.     The applicants complain about the proceedings before the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State. They rely on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in its relevant part, provides as follows: “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...” 19.     Article 35 § 1 of the Convention provides as follows: “The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.” 20.     The final decision relevant to these complaints was that given by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division on 25 February 2013 (see paragraph 2 above). The six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention therefore came to an end on 25 August 2013. 21.     The Court observes that the applicants’ representative was informed by letter of 11 September 2013 (see paragraph 9 above) that the six-month time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, extended by the grace period granted at that time by paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said Practice direction, would end on 23 October 2013 and that the completed table with information regarding all applicants had to be sent back on a CD-ROM or a memory stick before this date. Furthermore, the applicants’ representative was reminded of this requirement on 25 and 30 October 2013 (see paragraphs 12 and 13 above). However, only on 3 March 2014 (see paragraph 15 above) did the Court receive a memory stick with the requested table. 22.     It is the duty of applicants, no less than Governments, to cooperate fully in the conduct of the proceedings and, in particular, to take such action within their power as the Court considers necessary for the proper administration of justice (Rule 44A of the Rules of Court). For present purposes, the implication is that it is the responsibility of the individual applicant to submit a properly completed application form and provide the Court with all the information required for processing the application in a timely manner. 23.     In the instant case, the applicants were required to complete a table in a commercially available and extremely common electronic format and submit it on a physical medium, a CD-ROM or a memory stick. The Court takes the view that they could reasonably be expected to comply with the instructions given by its Registry. 24.     The Registry’s purpose in requiring the submission of the applicants’ identifying information in a prescribed electronic format was to enable a considerable number of applicants to be registered individually in the Court’s administrative database. The technical means to simplify this task exist and can be presumed to be at the disposal of the applicants themselves if not their representative. 25.     The time available, which under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention is six months from the date of the final domestic decision, would appear to have been adequate of itself. In addition, at the relevant time the Practice direction on the institution of proceedings vouchsafed a grace period which in the present case extended the time-limit by a further one month and twenty-eight days. 26.     In the circumstances, therefore, the Court finds that there is good cause to hold that the date of introduction of the application is 3 March 2014, the date on which the memory stick with the requested information was finally received at the Registry. 27.     It follows that the complaints here in issue have been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention. C.     Complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone and together with Article 13 of the Convention 28.     All applicants complain in addition that they have been deprived of their possessions in violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, which provides as follows: “Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.” 29.     They also complain that they have been denied an effective remedy in this respect, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, which provides as follows: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” 30.     The Court notes that proceedings relating to compensation are currently pending before the Supreme Court (see paragraph 2 above and Stefania Adorisio and Others against the Netherlands and three other applications (dec.), cited above, § 48). 31.     It follows that the applicants’ complaints under this head are premature and must be rejected under Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Marialena Tsirli   Alvina Gyulumyan Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix   N o . First name Last name Birth date Nationality Place of residence   Annie ANEMA-KWINKELENBERG 22/06/1949 Dutch Alkmaar   Michiel ARENDSE 11/05/1981 Dutch Rotterdam   Robert AUDENAERDE 16/07/1980 Dutch Utrecht   Cornelis AVEZAAT 14/04/1946 Dutch Hoek van Holland   Ramón BARBERO GARCIA 18/11/1957 Spanish Segovia   Steven BERBIERS 03/12/1982 Belgian Moortsele   Bob BERMOND 01/03/1944 Dutch Amsterdam   Haiko BOSSCHER 20/03/1959 Dutch Enschede   Gerardus BOUMA 24/03/1959 Dutch Amersfoort   Evangelos BOURBOULIS 26/09/1932 Greek Athens   Peter BOUTER 22/02/1971 Dutch Streefkerk   Heinrich BRAUNER 04/05/1947 German Lugano   Michael CALLUS 19/01/1958 Maltese Rabat   Nicotra CALOGERA 22/01/1943 Italian Naro   Pierre CAMILLERI 02/11/1977 Maltese Mosta   Theresa CAMILLERI 20/02/1951 Maltese Mosta   Ginés Almazán CAMPOS 03/04/1962 Spanish Madrid   Yiu Keung CHAN 10/01/1946 Chinese CHN   Eleni CHEILA 03/06/1958 Greek Athens   Marina CHEILA 29/11/1968 Greek Athens   Evangelos CHEILAS 23/03/1929 Greek Athens   Jonker CORNELIS 10/09/1980 Dutch Amsterdam   Alfred CUSCHIERI 01/06/1939 Maltese Hamrun   Carmen CUSCHIERI 27/11/1940 Maltese Hamrun   Graziella CUTAJAR 15/02/1975 Maltese Birkirkara   Richard DE GROOT 11/02/1973 Dutch Venlo   Bernardina DE JONG OTTEN 10/09/1954 Dutch Zoetermeer   Michael DE MAN 10/05/1983 Belgian De-Pinte   Meindert DE VRIES 21/04/1957 Dutch Rotterdam   Joost DOP 09/02/1966 Dutch London   Jan ESLHOF 13/10/1951 Dutch Beekbergen   Angela FARRUGIA 10/03/1968 Maltese Birkirkara   Rosina FENECH 01/08/1967 Maltese Rabat   Elise FRATERMAN 31/12/1946 Dutch Amsterdam   Alfred FRITZ 11/03/1945 Dutch Amsterdam   Andrew GARNISI 27/04/1959 Maltese Luqa   Simeon GATT 14/02/1970 Maltese Mosta   Groen GEERTRUIDA 20/06/1951 Dutch Avenhorn   Maijke GERRITS 11/12/1984 Dutch Wamel   Patrick GHIGO 07/06/1974 Maltese Birkirkara   Patrizia GHOULFERRETTI 22/11/1966 Panamanian Panama City   Aristeidis GRIGORIOU 06/10/1976 Greek Athens   Carmelo GRIMA 18/01/1944 Maltese Burmarrad   Daniel GRIMA 31/08/1974 Maltese St. Paul’s Bay   Fritz HALBGEWACHS 09/05/1948 German Hassloch   Achim HASENMÜLLER 21/02/1978 German Weinstadt   Alexis HATZOPOULOS 28/03/1965 Greek Kifisia   Willem HEIJBOER 11/10/1946 Dutch Sint Annaland   Irmgard HELMSTRIJD 27/03/1969 Dutch Enschede   Erik HENNY 18/12/1948 Dutch Luxembourg   Alcanne HOUTZAAGER 24/04/1964 Dutch Bussum   Wendelgelst JEROEN 17/12/1971 Dutch Amstelveen   Alexander KERKVLIET 01/08/1951 Dutch Leiden   Evangelos KIARAS 27/04/1949 Greek Athens   Evangelos KLEIDARIS 04/01/1954 Greek Athens   Vasileos KOLIOPOULOS 11/12/1985 Greek Athens   Wilhelmus KOP 03/01/1953 Dutch Leiden   Evangelos KORASIDIS   Greek Athens   Georgios KOROMPELIS 17/05/1961 Greek Athens   Neeltje KROONDER HUNDERSMARCK 26/07/1938 Dutch Zeist   Johannes KUIJPERS   Dutch Zoetermeer   Jan LAENENS 18/03/1957 Belgian Aarschot   Ivan LAMBRECHT 24/09/1956 Belgian Wetteren   Elisabeth LEËN 11/02/1957 Dutch Baarn   Emaliese LOFARO 15/06/1985 Maltese Balzan   Kevin MAMO 02/03/1973 Maltese Swieqi   Susan MANGION CORTIS 22/01/1975 Maltese Marsascala   Janssens MARGRIET 05/05/1945 Dutch Amstelveen   Adam MARKOU 05/01/1969 Greek Piraeus   Arthur MARX 29/03/1944 Dutch Laren   Daniel MEIRSMAN 24/05/1952 Belgian Retie   Leonidas MELETO-POULOS 01/01/1952 Greek Glyfada   Grazio MICALLEF 23/04/1950 Maltese Bahrija   Jacobus MOLENAAR 09/12/1952 Dutch Zoetermeer   Monique MOLENDIJK 04/08/1960 Dutch Den Haag   Nikolaos NIKOLOPOULOS 13/04/1966 Greek Athens   Pedro NUNES 13/09/1980 Portuguese Moscavide   Garyfalia OIKONOMAKOU 27/01/1943 Greek Athens   Sijbrand OPGELDER 07/09/1949 Dutch Beverwijk   Elisabeth OPGELDER-WENTINK 31/10/1955 Dutch Beverwijk   Bernardus PARENGKUAN 24/10/1964 Dutch Den Haag   Massimiliano PERO 17/05/1972 Italian London   Tom PESSERS 30/11/1958 Dutch Tilburg   Erdbrink PETER 13/03/1948 Dutch Abcoude   Huub PETERS 24/06/1964 Dutch Uithoorn   Cornelis PON 18/12/1935 Dutch Putten   Jan POOL 04/04/1950 Dutch Amsterdam   Jos REIJERS 08/01/1947 Dutch Brasschaat   Vincentius REIJERS 02/09/1949 Dutch Waalre   Cornelis RIETBROEK 18/03/1945 Dutch Almere   Robin RIETVELD 08/08/1970 Dutch Goirle   Eddy RIJNTJES 25/11/1977 Dutch Berlin   Casper RONDELTAP 22/02/1956 Dutch Amsterdam   Vasileios SAKELLARIOU 06/01/1966 Greek Athens   Tristan SANDERS 23/08/1982 Dutch Den Bosch   Ivan SANT 21/06/1949 Maltese Kappara   Martinus SCHOENAKER 11/11/1962 Dutch Malden   Gerda SCHOPF 19/03/1933 German Achen   Rolf SCHOPF 08/04/1928 German Achen                     Sietse SIERSEMA 28/04/1976 Dutch Leidschen-dam                     Saicheung SIN 08/04/1983 Dutch Amsterdam                     Michael SLUYDTS 18/10/1989 Belgian Antwerpen                     Arend SMIT 20/08/1955 Dutch Sneek                     Oi Mui Amy TAM 10/01/1946 Chinese Tai Po Hongkong                     Antony TEN HAVE 24/10/1949 Dutch Doetinchem                     Constantijn TER HAAR 12/05/1974 Dutch Aboude                     Fred TOREN 02/03/1970 Dutch Den Bosch                     Nikolaos TOTSIOS 17/02/1966 Greek Athens                     Bart VAN ABBE 04/07/1954 Dutch Amstelveen                     Erik VAN AMSTERDAM   Dutch Castricum                     Willem VAN DALEN 30/03/1946 Dutch Schaijk                     Adrianus VAN DER AREND 25/11/1956 Dutch Monster                     René VAN DER LINDEN   Dutch Drachten                     Leornardus VAN DER LUBBE 18/12/1958 Dutch Hoevelaken                     Arie VAN DER PADT 14/03/1932 Dutch Nuenen                     Daniel VAN DER SPREE 22/01/1947 Belgian Overijse                     Jan VAN DER TORRE 19/10/1946 Dutch Wilnis                     Jacobus VAN DER VLEUTEN 19/09/1954 Dutch Asten-Heusden                     Vincent VAN DER VLIST 13/12/1987 Dutch Wageningen                     Patrick VAN EESBEECK 22/06/1961 Indonesian Jakarta                     Antonius VAN EIJDEN 19/05/1963 Dutch Naarden                     Rudi VAN EIJK 03/12/1962 Dutch Amere                     Sander VAN LEEUWEN 10/10/1973 German Waiblingen                     Marco VAN VEELEN 22/08/1967 Dutch De Meern                     Jeroen VAN VELDHUIZEN 17/10/1973 Dutch Apeldoorn                     Nicolaas VAN VELZEN 13/09/1984 Dutch Groningen                     Petrus VAN VELZEN 31/10/1953 Dutch Wierden                     Adeline VELLA 01/10/1947 Maltese Zebbug                     Carmelo VELLA 12/12/1962 Maltese Fgura                     Joseph VELLA 30/03/1948 Maltese Zebbug                     Patrick VELLA 22/06/1964 Maltese zurrieq                     Simona VELLA 02/07/1966 Maltese zurrieq                     Cassandra VERSPEEK 09/03/1971 Dutch Molenhoek                     Carlo VERSTEEG 06/12/1973 Dutch Beverwijk                     Cornelis VISSER 25/06/1934 Mone-gasque Monaco                     Albert VREDEVELD 12/02/1940 Dutch Meppel                     Hendrik WALHOF 18/01/1963 Dutch Enschede                     Freerk WALRAVENS 28/04/1960 Dutch Hulst                     Johannes WETSELS 02/10/1945 Dutch Sittard                     Leonardus WOLF 29/03/1968 Dutch Amsterdam