Short Reads

Dutch national police service liable for unlawful granting of firearms permit

Politie aansprakelijk voor schietpartij Alphen aan den Rijn

Dutch national police service liable for unlawful granting of firearms permit

02.10.2019 NL law

In a recent decision (ECLI:NL:HR:2019:1409), the Supreme Court has decided that the Dutch national police force is liable for damage suffered by victims of a shooting which took place in a shopping centre in 2011; an event that shocked the Netherlands. The Supreme Court held that the police had unlawfully granted a permit for the firearms used in the shooting.

Background

In 2011, a man opened fire in a shopping centre in the city of Alphen aan den Rijn. Six people were killed and sixteen were injured. The man responsible subsequently killed himself. As it turned out, the man had a permit for the firearms he used, granted by the police on the basis of the Dutch Arms and Ammunition Act. Victims, bereaved individuals and shop owners instituted proceedings against the police, claiming that the police had not properly assessed whether the man was eligible to possess the firearms used in the shooting.

Before the Supreme Court, the police no longer disputed that it should indeed have refused the permit, as the man had in previous years been compulsory admitted to a psychiatric hospital (in relation to suicidal planning) and had been involved in incidents with an illegal air rifle. These circumstances were known to the police, but this knowledge did not reach the person deciding on the permit.

Protective scope of the Arms and Ammunition Act

While it had already been established that the police acted unlawfully, the Supreme Court still had to decide whether this also resulted in liability. One of the requirements for liability under Dutch law is that the damage claimed by the plaintiff is within the what is termed the 'protective scope' of the norm that the defendant has violated (relativiteitsvereiste) - in this case, whether the damage to victims of the shooting fell within the protective scope of the Arms and Ammunition Act.

The District Court decided that this was not the case, as this Act is intended to protect the safety of society, not individual financial interests. This followed the Supreme Court's ruling in the Duwbak Linda case on the protective scope of legislation pertaining to the granting of permits for ships. In the Duwbak Linda case, damage caused by a ship that had been granted a permit to participate in shipping traffic, but later sank, was found to be outside the protective scope of that legislation. Therefore, the State was not liable.

However, the Court of Appeal decided differently: it derived from the parliamentary papers that with the system of permits in the Arms and Ammunition Act the legislator had intended to also protect the individual interests of the victims of the shooting. The Supreme Court agreed. The "stringent" permit system, prompted by the risk of firearms, led to the conclusion that the Arms and Ammunition Act also aims to "prevent individual citizens from becoming a victim of possession of firearms that is not responsible". Damage to victims is therefore within the protective scope of the norm, in contrast to the permit system in Duwbak Linda, the Supreme Court decided.

Causation

Another defence raised by the police was that the requirement of causation (known as the 'but for' test) was not met. The police service argued that, had it not granted the permit, the man would have obtained firearms illegally, and the shooting would have occurred in any case. The police pointed out that the man had planned the shooting, made preparations and acted under the influence of a mental disorder.

The Supreme Court rejected this defence, taking into consideration that the police had violated a safety norm aimed to prevent possession of firearms that is not responsible. It held that while the police service had argued that the man could have obtained illegal firearms, it had not substantiated that he would have actually done so. The circumstances raised by the police occurred after the permit had been granted, and in the view of the Supreme Court could therefore not be considered such substantiation. The police service was therefore liable for the victims' damages.

Scope of liability

In addition, the Supreme Court decided that the liability of the police service is not limited to damages in relation to death and injury, as the Court of Appeal had decided. The Supreme Court considered that there is no ground to categorically exclude other kinds of damages (for instance damage to shop owners' property). Whether such damage is sufficiently foreseeable and sufficiently related to the unlawful permit granting in the sense of Article 6:98 of the Dutch Civil Code (toerekening van schade) is to be decided in follow-up proceedings for determination of damages. However, the Supreme Court did keep open the option of excluding such other damages from eligibility for compensation in those follow-on proceedings.

Conclusion

The Dutch Supreme Court went one step further than the Court of Appeal. The Dutch national police service could be liable for damages other than those related to death and injury. Furthermore, the Supreme Court's decision was tailored to the specific protective scope of the Arms and Ammunition Act, acknowledging that another statutory permit system (such as that in Duwbak Linda) could result in a different decision. It appears that one cannot draw many conclusions concerning public authority liability in general from this tragic case, apart from its – fortunately – exceptional facts.

Team

Related news

09.04.2020 LU law
Luxembourg introduces new State aid scheme for businesses affected by Covid-19

Short Reads - Following the Luxembourg government’s declaration of a state emergency on 28 March 2020 and as part of the new measures implemented in response to the unprecedented and unforeseeable consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic, the country has adopted a new law in an effort to support businesses suffering financial consequences.

Read more

08.04.2020 NL law
The Dutch government publishes an ambitious strategy and policy agenda on the development of the clean hydrogen market

Short Reads - The Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy (“Minister”) presented the ‘Government strategy on hydrogen’ (Kabinetsvisie Waterstof, also available in English) by means of a letter addressed to the Dutch House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) on 30 March 2020. With the presentation of its hydrogen strategy and policy agenda, the Dutch government has underlined its ambitions to use ‘the unique position of the Netherlands’ to develop a strong position for the Netherlands in the hydrogen market.

Read more

09.04.2020 NL law
Construction sector and corona: on the brakes unnecessarily?

Short Reads - Here and there throughout the construction sector, the corona crisis appears to be unnecessarily slowing down production. In particular, the process for granting permits has slowed down. Clients are putting certain construction projects on hold, while tenders are also being postponed. Below we discuss the question to what extent competent authorities and principals are within their rights in taking these measures. With regard to tenders, a clause is proposed which would allow them to go ahead - taking into account the uncertainties surrounding the corona crisis.

Read more

08.04.2020 NL law
Hydrogen: Consultation by the Dutch regulator (ACM) on the role of group companies of TSOs and DSOs in the Dutch hydrogen market

Short Reads - On 30 March 2020, the Dutch Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy (“Minister”) presented the ‘Government strategy on hydrogen’ (Kabinetsvisie Waterstof, also available in English), detailing the government strategy and policy agenda on hydrogen (further discussed in another Stibbe blog post).

Read more

09.04.2020 NL law
Bouwsector en corona: onnodig op de rem?

Short Reads - In de bouwsector lijkt de coronacrisis de productie hier en daar onnodig af te remmen. Met name valt op dat vergunningverlening vertraagt. Voorts leggen opdrachtgevers bepaalde bouwprojecten stil. Ook worden aanbestedingen uitgesteld. Hieronder wordt de vraag behandeld in hoeverre bevoegde gezagen en opdrachtgevers daarbij in hun recht staan. Ten aanzien van aanbestedingen wordt een clausule voorgesteld waarmee deze doorgang kunnen vinden – rekening houdend met de onzekerheden rond corona.

Read more

08.04.2020 NL law
The Dutch government publishes an ambitious strategy and policy agenda on the development of the clean hydrogen market

Short Reads - The Minister of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy (“Minister”) presented the ‘Government strategy on hydrogen’ (Kabinetsvisie Waterstof, also available in English) by means of a letter addressed to the Dutch House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) on 30 March 2020. With the presentation of its hydrogen strategy and policy agenda, the Dutch government has underlined its ambitions to use ‘the unique position of the Netherlands’ to develop a strong position for the Netherlands in the hydrogen market.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring