Attribution of Unlawful Government Acts in Rotterdam

Attribution of Unlawful Government Acts in Rotterdam

In Rotterdam, attribution of government acts hinges on whether an unlawful action by a civil servant or public body, such as the Municipality of Rotterdam, can be imputed to the government. This is crucial for residents pursuing damage claims against the municipality or the State for an unlawful government act.

Legal Basis

The rules on attribution of unlawful government acts are rooted in civil liability law, particularly Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code (DCC), which defines unlawful acts and requires compensation for damages. For public authorities like the Municipality of Rotterdam, Article 6:163 DCC governs internal attribution, but Supreme Court case law is decisive. Key rulings include:

• Katwijk case (HR 27 November 1992, NJ 1993/293): A civil servant's act is attributable if it falls within the 'scope of duties and authority'.
• Bleker case (HR 26 June 2009, NJ 2010/157): Apparent authority can justify attribution.

In administrative matters, Article 3:4 of the General Administrative Law Act (GALA) is relevant for classification, but damage claims proceed under the DCC at the District Court of Rotterdam.

Conditions for Attribution

For attribution of unlawful government acts in Rotterdam, three criteria must all be satisfied:

1. Task-related: The civil servant acts within their public role, including closely related activities.
2. Organizational link: A hierarchical relationship exists with the Municipality of Rotterdam; self-employed contractors (ZZP'ers) typically fall outside this scope.
3. Not a private initiative: The act pertains to official duties, not personal life.

The Supreme Court interprets these broadly: attribution may apply even beyond formal authority if within the 'sphere of service'.

Exceptions to Attribution

Not every civil servant error burdens the Municipality of Rotterdam. Exceptions include:

• Genuine private actions: Such as receiving a parking ticket during work hours for purely personal reasons.
• Investigative matters: Article 6:175 DCC limits liability for good-faith police conduct.
• External deviance: Violence stemming from private anger, far removed from duties.

Comparison: Attributable vs. Non-Attributable

Practical Examples from Rotterdam

Example: A Rotterdam resident applies for a building permit from the Municipality of Rotterdam. The civil servant loses documents and rejects it 'due to incompleteness'. Delay causes damage – attributable, as it is task-related. File a claim under Article 6:162 DCC at the District Court of Rotterdam.

Another case: An officer damages property during a house search in Rotterdam-South. Attributable, unless driven by private motive. Submit the claim to the police or the State.

Counter-example: A Rotterdam waste collector steals a bicycle during their route. Potentially non-attributable if purely for personal gain, but attributable if the service context prevails.

Rights and Obligations in Cases of Attribution

Rights of Rotterdam residents:

• Pursue damages via summons at the District Court of Rotterdam or administrative objection.
• Prove causality between the act and the harm.
• Statute of limitations: 5 years (Article 3:310 DCC).

Obligations of the government:

• Internal recourse in cases of gross negligence.
• Conduct thorough and transparent investigations.

Read more in our article on unlawful government acts. For advice, contact the Legal Aid Office Rotterdam.

Frequently Asked Questions

Tips and Recommendations

For a strong claim involving attribution of unlawful government acts in Rotterdam:

• Document everything: dates, names, witness statements.
• Submit a written notice to the Municipality of Rotterdam or file an objection.
• Seek free assistance at the Legal Aid Office Rotterdam.
• Consider mediation for quicker resolution.