Bubble bath, bacteria and a vanished foundation: the West Frisian Flora's legionella case

During the Indonesian War of Independence, countless Indonesian men were executed without trial by Dutch soldiers. The Dutch state has since acknowledged that systematic and extreme violence and publicly apologized for it. Yet the surviving relatives of these men - now in their elderly years - are told that they are not eligible for compensation. Linde Mayer assists thirteen of them. What happened In the Indonesian War of Independence (1945 - 1949), the Dutch army conducted operations in which Indonesian men were summary executions. No charges, no defense, no verdict. The victims were killed on the spot. In many cases, their deaths were not documented. Decades later, the Dutch State established the regulation ‘Contours of civil law settlement to compensate children of victims of summary executions in the former Dutch East Indies. This regulation allows children of executed men to apply for compensation. Our clients made use of that possibility. Their requests were denied. The impact The men who were executed left behind children. Those children grew up without a father, without an explanation and without any recognition of what was done to their families. Many have carried the consequences with them throughout their lives. Therefore, the rejection of their requests affects them not only financially, but especially in what is really important to them: recognition. Recognition that they have been wronged, and that this injustice has had lasting consequences. The State says it recognizes that injustice. Its application shows otherwise. An unfeasible burden of proof The heart of the problem lies in the standard of proof used by the scheme. To qualify for compensation, relatives must prove that their father's execution was mentioned in published, public sources. That is precisely where it goes wrong: summary executions were often not documented or not recognizably documented at the time. Consequently, in many cases, they cannot be found in the sources called for by the settlement. The State acknowledges that these executions took place, but at the same time demands evidence that is usually not there. This puts relatives in an impossible position of proof. What Beer advocaten does We have asked the State to enter into consultations in the short term. Those consultations have two goals. The first is to review the standard of proof. In its current form, it excludes precisely the group for which the rule is intended. Second, we want to discuss with the State what evidence is available and how it can be carefully considered. We await a response from the State. If consultation does not lead to a solution, our clients will consider further steps. The urgency is great. All survivors are at an advanced age. If the assessment of their requests takes too long, the settlement risks overshooting its goal. How Linde Mayer looks at this case ’What touches me in this case is the fundamental contradiction in the State's position. On the one hand, the Netherlands acknowledges that there has been systematic and extreme violence

On July 17, 2014, flight MH17 crashed over Ukraine. All 298 occupants were killed. Among them were 196 Dutch nationals. For the bereaved families, a period of loss, uncertainty and years of struggle for truth, recognition and justice began. What happened and the impact on people and society Investigation by the Dutch Safety Board and the international Joint Investigation Team revealed that flight MH17 was brought down by a BUK missile. According to that investigation, the installation had been transferred to the area from which the plane was fired shortly before the disaster. To date, Russia denies any involvement. For the bereaved families, the impact of the disaster is enormous. Some lost their entire family in one fell swoop. For many families, not only was a loved one taken away, but also a foundation of daily life. That Russia continues to deny any involvement and does not share truthful information makes the loss for bereaved families even heavier. Questions remain. Was it a mistake? Did they think they were shooting at a military aircraft? Precisely because answers are not forthcoming, many bereaved families find it difficult to conclude their grieving process. The disaster also left deep scars in the Netherlands. Because of the large number of Dutch victims, MH17 became an event that not only affected individual families, but the disaster is also part of Dutch history. The interests at stake In this case, the interests of the relatives are paramount. They want recognition for what happened to them, clarity about the facts and accountability of the responsible parties. In addition, the case touches on broader questions about international legal order and legal protection. For surviving relatives it is of great importance that not only nationally, but also internationally is pronounced what has been established and what responsibility this entails. For whom Beer advocaten stands up We represent the interests of nearly 300 surviving relatives of more than 100 victims of flight MH17. We do so in various proceedings, nationally and internationally. Our commitment from the beginning has been to use all possible legal routes that could contribute to recognition, truth-telling and justice for our clients. The legal approach and challenges The legal approach had three tracks, in the order in which they played out: negotiations with the Malaysia Airlines insurer, a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, and criminal proceedings. First, negotiations were conducted with the Malaysia Airlines insurer on behalf of next of kin. As a carrier, the airline bears its own liability under aviation law. On the basis of those negotiations, compensation amounts were paid for our clients. A complaint was then filed with the European Court of Human Rights against Russia on behalf of relatives. That was not an obvious step. There were also noises that this route would have little chance of success. Nevertheless, we filed that complaint because we felt that this route should be taken. The criminal proceedings had exceptional challenges. It involved a very large group of relatives, with different nationalities and different needs. In a regular criminal case, there is often direct and individual contact with clients.

Around the year 2000, pharmaceutical company Merck launched the drug Vioxx. A painkiller that quickly became popular and just as quickly proved dangerous. The company knew even before Vioxx was produced for patients that using this drug significantly increased the risk of heart and brain attacks. But it didn't warn about that. Not in the package insert and not to the authorities who had to approve Vioxx. In 2004, Merck took Vioxx off the market worldwide. It was one of the largest recalls in pharmaceutical history. By then, our clients had already suffered a stroke. Victims in the Netherlands, settlements in America We acted for a large group of Dutch victims. People who had taken Vioxx and then suffered an infarction. Some suffered permanent damage to their health. In America, Merck reached settlements with victims. In the Netherlands, the company did not want to come to the table. Merck made it public that it would not settle because of Vioxx. Outside America, they did so in few countries. We continued. Thousands of files, one decisive piece of evidence There were two crucial things to prove. First: that the infarction had been caused by Vioxx, and not some other cause. Second: that Merck knew about the increased risk before the market launch. Through the courts, we demanded Merck's internal research documents. In a room, we searched through thousands of binders for what was not in the package insert. Finally, we found the reports from the research phase, prepared before Vioxx came on the market. These showed that Merck knew the drug worryingly increased the risk of infarction. The company had not shared that information with regulators. The road to the negotiating table To establish Merck's liability judicially as the basis for a settlement, we selected several clients in the group as litigators. Their cases were a model for the rest. The decisive step toward Merck was taken by a lawyer from our international network. Without that opening, the negotiations would not have got off the ground. This shows the importance of international contacts in cases with a foreign counterparty. Retrospective “The fact that perseverance wins certainly applies to this case,” says Christa Wijnakker. “Merck had made it public that they would not settle because of Vioxx, and have done so in few countries outside America. It hit me that Vioxx was taken off the market in 2004 because of the risk of infarction, and the failure to warn about it. And that Merck did not want to take responsibility towards Dutch victims for a long time after that.” Do you have questions about this case? Please contact Christa Wijnakker.