DutchNews.nl - Murderer must pay victim's mother, says court

Murderer must pay victim's mother, says court

Friday 17 July 2009

The man found guilty of murdering student Nadia van de Ven has been ordered to pay her mother 'several hundred thousand euros' in compensation by a court in Arnhem.

It is the first time a Dutch court has ordered the payment of such damages to relatives of a victim, lawyer Bas Martens told the Volkskrant.

Since her daughter's death, the woman has suffered from post traumatic stress syndrome. A doctor by profession, she now suffers panic attacks and is hardly able to work, the paper says.

The court said Pascal F is responsible for this and that he should pay for her lost income. He has also been ordered to pay her €10,000 in compensation for the intense pain she has suffered.

Last year, Martens claimed unsuccessfully that Pascal F's parents should pay compensation to the victim's parents because they knew their son had murdered the student and helped him escape.

Van de Ven was murdered in her flat by the man, who was her landlord, on October 1, 2002 after a row over a washing machine.

Subscribe Newsletter
Print-version
News archives

Readers' comments

I don't approve of damage compensations based on the income loss of surviving relatives . At first glance such compensation may seem to make sense, but it doesn't.
Think of it: it would be 'cheap' to murder someone's whose mother is on the dole (or someone without family), and 'expensive' to murder someone whose mother is earning lots of money.
Murder should be purely a matter of right and wrong, and should be kept out of the sphere of money.
What then about the real problem of the income loss that the mother is incurring? I think every worker should make provisions to cover the risk of income loss, and those provisions should cover all possible causes, be it lay-offs, illness, accidents, a slack in business, or - as in this case - disability resulting from intense grief.

By Hans | July 17, 2009 11:04 AM

I am not against this decision..but isnt it a bit naive? meaning that if u commit a murder obviously you should go to prison for several years if not for all ur life. What are the consequences if you dont pay? stay more int he prison for 3-5 years?

By kos | July 17, 2009 11:48 AM

I would say that the culprit should get a punishment as per the law. Added to that, as a result of a crime, if the victim's relatives suffer financial losses, they have to be compensated.
Hans, it's a bit ridiculous to say that one should make provisions to cover all the possible causes. Not many people will have that much money to cover them. It is also very uncertain to think about one's "possible causes of loss."

By Chief justice | July 17, 2009 2:38 PM

Buds of sharia acoming!

By joe | July 18, 2009 12:36 PM

Comments have been closed for this article.

Comments