CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 février 1999

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 3 February 1999 Driemond Bouw BV v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 31908/96 Decision 2.2.1999 Article 6 Civil proceedings Article 6-1 Fair hearing Absence of reference in appeal court decision to an argument presented by the applicant: inadmissible   The applicant company hired employees for work in the Netherlands from a German company. The German administration issued secondment certificates for them. The Dutch authorities registered the German company and imposed social security contributions on it. It went bankrupt and consequently the authorities declared the applicant company liable for the payment of the social security contributions for the hired workmen. The applicant company filed an appeal before the Regional Court, submitting that it had found no social security contributions demands. The appeal was dismissed, the court noting that social security contributions demands had been sent to the German company and that no payment had been received in response. The court also found that there was no international secondment at issue, for the employees were all Dutch nationals, residing and working in the Netherlands at the relevant time. They had been insured under the Dutch social security system until their recruitment by the German company and had then been assigned to work in the Netherlands. The applicant company lodged a further appeal with the Central Appeals Tribunal, stressing that it appeared from the case-file that no social security contribution demands had been sent to the German company and that on the other hand letters from another administrative body had created legitimate expectations that the German company would not have to pay the social security contributions. The court dismissed the appeal but, allegedly, did not examine the applicant company’s argument regarding the sending of social security contribution demands. Inadmissible under Article 6(1): Proceedings concerning the payment of contributions under the Dutch social security scheme fall under this provision. Article   6(1) obliges courts to give reasons for their judgments, but cannot be interpreted as requiring a detailed answer to every argument. The extent to which this duty applies may vary according to the nature of the decision and can only be determined in the light of the circumstances of the case. In the instant case, the General Administration Law Act does not state that courts should address every specific argument raised by the parties, but merely give reasons for their decisions. The dispute was whether the applicant company could be held liable for the payment of the social security contributions which should have been paid by the German company. The decisive point at issue was whether certain requirements contained in the applicable rules on international secondment had been respected on the basis of which the applicant company would have been exempted from this liability or whether it could claim exemption from it on grounds of legitimate expectations raised by another administrative organ. However, the Regional Court did examine the applicant company’s argument and stated that it clearly appeared that social security demands had been sent to the German company. The applicant company did not challenge this finding, but merely stated that it had not seen such demands itself. The Central Appeal Court’s silence with regard to this argument can reasonably be interpreted as an implied rejection of an argument not considered decisive for the outcome of the proceedings: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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