The Plough Legal Procedures Timeline
On this page the timeline of the legal procedures of the longest running forgery case in history will be shown. Visit the other Law pages for more information on the individual procedures.
| 06-06-1991 | Sotheby’s and five other auction houses file criminal complaints against Cor van L. for attempted fraud |
| 13-06-1992 | Van L. is arrested and his house raided. 31 works of art are confiscated |
| 17-06-1992 | Van L. is released after four days of interrogation |
| 01-1993 | The confiscated works are returned to Van L. |
| 03-1993 | The Public Prosecutor’s Office drops the charges against Van L. |
| 31-03-1994 | Renée Smithuis and Cees Hofsteenge start an article 12 procedure to have Van L. prosecuted |
| 20-09-1994 | The Attorney-General advises the court to deny the article 12 complaint, based on a lack of sufficiency and weight of evidence |
| 09-1995 | The Court of Appeal Amsterdam denies the article 12 complaint, based on a lack of sufficiency and weight of evidence |
| 30-01-2003 | Johan Meijering sues Van L. for breach of contract and consequential damages. Central in this procedure 10 works sold by Van L. to Meijering |
| 16-08-2004 | Meijering files criminal complaits for fraud, forgery and embezzlement against Van L. |
| 18-05-2005 | Meijering puts lays attachment on the farm of Van L. |
| 15-06-2005 | The Public Prosecutor’s Office decides not to prosecute Van L. Meijering files an article 12 procedure against this decision |
| 31-08-2005 | The Procedure between Meijering and Van L. start with a calendar hearing |
| 02-11-2005 | Appearance of parties, the parties are unable to settle |
| 10-05-2006 | The Assen Court appoints C. Buijsert as independent expert witness |
| 25-07-2006 | Buijsert send his preliminary findings to the parties in which he concludes that all 10 paintings are fake |
| 11-01-2007 | Buijsert sends his final report, the conclusions are the same as in the preliminary report |
| 22-01-2007 | The Court of Appeal Leeuwarden denies Meijering’s article 12 complaint, based on a lack of sufficiency and weight of evidence |
| 01-08-2007 | The Assen Court orders the expert-witness to write an follow-up report to further elaborate on the reasoning behind his conlusions |
| 30-01-2008 | The Assen Court discards the conclusions of the expert witness and decides that there is insufficient evidence for the inauthenticity of the 10 works. Meijerings appeals this decision |
| 05-03-2008 | Meijering’s appeal is deamed admissible |
| 19-08-2009 | Meijering files another criminal complaint against Van L. for fraud and forgery |
| 29-04-2008 | Meijering sends the appeal-summons to Van L. The number of artworks in the procedure are reduced to five |
| 16-06-2010 | The first hearing in the appeal-procedure takes place |
| 28-09-2010 | The Court of Appeal Leeuwarden puts the burden of proof of the authenticity of the paintings on Meijering |
| 08-02-2011 | The Court of Appeal Leeuwarden hears three witnesses |
| 15-02-2011 | The Court of Appeal Leeuwarden hears another three witnesses |
| 15-06-2011 | Atelier voor Restauratie & Research van Schilderijen (A.R.R.S) present their final report, which leads to the decision of the Court of Appeal to declare two paintings fake |
| 24-06-2011 | The Court of Appeal Leeuwarden orders a settlement conference, the parties cannot come to an agreement |
| 24-07-2012 | The Court of Appeal Leeuwarden partially grants Meijering’s appeal and declares two, namely Pic de Luc and Het Reitdiep, of the five works fake. The remainder of the procedure is sent back to the Assen Court |
| 08-10-2012 | The Public Prosecutor’s Office decides not to prosecute Van L. |
| 30-10-2012 | Final judgement Court of Appeal Leeuwarden. The Court of Appeal destroys the judgement of the Assen Court of 30 January 2008 |
| 05-12-2012 | The Assen Court orders a settlement conference |
| 07-12-2012 | Meijering files an article 12 complaint to have Van L. prosecuted |
| 20-03-2013 | The settlement conference takes place, but parties cannot reach an agreement |
| 18-10-2013 | The Court of Appeal denies the article 12 complaint, as the statute of limitation of the criminal facts have passed |
| 08-01-2014 | The Assen Court allows Meijering, by interlocutory, to substantiate his damages claim |
| 19-11-2014 | The Assen Court dissolves the contract between Meijering and Van L. Furthermore, the court orders Van L. to pay € 40.000 in damages to Meijering. The remaining damages are to be determined in a separate damages proceeding |
| 13-02-2015 | Van L. appeals the Assen Court verdict and demands a stay of execution |
| 03-05-2016 | Van L. announces that he will appeal the final judgement of the Court of Appeal Leeuwarden on the basis of fraud (382 RV) in his substantiation for attachement |
| 19-05-2016 | The summary judge of the Noord-Nederland Court allows Van L.’s demand for attachment on Pic de Luc and Het Reitdiep |
| 03-11-2016 | Van L. starts a summary procedure to have the two paintings re-examined |
| 14-11-2016 | The Noord-Nederland Court denies Van L.’s claim to have the paintings re-examined |
| 17-08-2017 | Meijering summons Van L. for the damages-procedure |
| 24-10-2017 | The Court of Appeal Leeuwarden denies Van L.’s appeal to have a stay of execution of the 19 November 2014 judgement. The Court of Appeal will hear the remainder of the appeal on 5 december 2017 |
| 15-11-2017 | Van L. releases the material analysis report done by the Dutch Forensic institute (d.d. 12-12-1992) |
| 12-12-2017 | The Assen Court grants Meijering permission to put attachment on Van L.’s farm |
| 16-05-2018 | Judgement in the damages proceeding is scheduled to be given |
| 17-07-2018 | First Calendar-hearing in the appeal instigated by Van L. is scheduled |
DISCLAIMER: All rights reserved. All content (texts, trademarks, illustrations, photos, graphics, files etc.) on this website are protected by copyright and other protective laws. The contents of this website are to be used only in accordance with Internet regulations. Without the explicit written permission of the website’s controller it is prohibited to integrate in whole, or in part, any of the protected contents published on these websites into other programs or other web sites or to use them by any other means. This website can contain elements that are protected by copyright and by other laws that are subject to the copyright or other rights of third parties and that are correspondingly protected for these third parties.
The website’s controller has carefully compiled the contents of this website in accordance with their current state of knowledge. Access to and use of this website, as well as web sites related or connected to this by links, are at the user’s own risk and responsibility. Damage and warranty claims arising from missing or incorrect data are excluded. The website’s controller bears no responsibility or liability for damage of any kind, also for indirect or consequential damages resulting from access to or use of this website or websites related or connected to this by links. The website can contain links (cross references) to websites that are run by third parties. The website’s controller takes no responsibility for the content of these other websites.
The website’s controller has carefully compiled the contents of this website in accordance with their current state of knowledge. Access to and use of this website, as well as web sites related or connected to this by links, are at the user’s own risk and responsibility. Damage and warranty claims arising from missing or incorrect data are excluded. The website’s controller bears no responsibility or liability for damage of any kind, also for indirect or consequential damages resulting from access to or use of this website or websites related or connected to this by links. The website can contain links (cross references) to websites that are run by third parties. The website’s controller takes no responsibility for the content of these other websites.
