Citaat | Gerechtshof Den Haag 18 december 2015

Onder 5.2 Gerechtshof Den Haag 18 december 2015

Een alinea uit Gerechtshof Den Haag 18 december 2015, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:3586.

These arguments have been advanced by Shell in both the claim under art. 843(a) CP to be adjudicated now (in stage 1) (the appeal against the District Court’s judgment re this claim, respectively), and in the principal case, which will be adjudicated in stage 2. All these pleas are to argue that Eric Dooh’s claims for damages etc. cannot be sustained and that for that reason the claim under art. 843(a) CCP cannot be upheld either. However, it is not up to the court deciding about a claim under art. 843(a) CCP to decide, as to the merits and finally, about (aspects of) the principal claim. It suffices for now that Eric Dooh has demonstrated prima facie that his relationship to the contaminated fish ponds and lands is such that on that account he can legitimately claim damages from the party possibly responsible for the pollution. The defences referred to in 5.1 above will be assessed against this background. First defence 5.1(c) will be discussed, as it has the widest implications.

Zelf controleren

Voor dit citaat hoeft niemand Bron op zijn woord te geloven. Het document dat rechtspraak.nl publiceerde, staat op https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/de8feb9f0194be3387388a193625674a6efa5f71b1f8db026b54aca27981e24c. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt de8feb9f0194be3387388a193625674a6efa5f71b1f8db026b54aca27981e24c, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 158018 tot 159065.