CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 8 juillet 1987

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  Application No. 10574/83 KOEN NYSSEN against   BELGIUM               &S   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   adopted on 8 July 1987     TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                Page               INTRODUCTION ....................................       2               Part I   : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ................       4               Part II : SOLUTION REACHED ......................       5     &_INTRODUCTION&S       1.       This Report relates to Application No. 10574/83 introduced by Koen Nyssen against Belgium on 17 June 1983 under Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.   The application was registered on 3 October 1983.           The applicant was represented by Mrs.   L. Versluys-Dunesme, a lawyer practising in Leuven.           The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr.   J. Niset of the Ministry of Justice.           On 10 October 1985, the European Commission of Human Rights declared admissible the applicant's complaint that military courts cannot be considered as independent and impartial tribunals for the trial of a civilian who, for political and conscientious reasons, refuses to perform either military or substituted civilian service.           The Commission declared inadmissible the applicant's complaint under Article 7 that he was prosecuted in an unjustified way, because this complaint was not introduced within six months after the final decision.*             The Commission then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 of the Convention which provides as follows:           "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition         referred to it:           (a)      it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts,         undertake together with the representatives of the parties         an examination of the petition and, if need be, an         investigation, for the effective conduct of which the         States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities,         after an exchange of views with the Commission;           (b)      it shall place itself at the disposal of the parties         concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement         of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as         defined in this Convention."               -----------   *   The Commission's decision on the admissibility is public    and can be obtained from the Commission's Secretary.   3.       The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 8 July 1987 it adopted this Report which, in accordance with Article 30 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.   The following members of the Commission were present when the Report was adopted:                   MM. C. A. NØRGAARD, President                   J. A. FROWEIN                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   G. TENEKIDES                   S. TRECHSEL                   B. KIERNAN                   A. WEITZEL                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G. H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              Mr.   F. MARTINEZ     Part I     STATEMENT OF THE FACTS     4.       The applicant is a Belgian citizen, born in 1961 and a resident of Lanaken, Belgium.   5.       The application concerns the trial before military courts of a conscript who, for political and conscientious reasons, refuses to perform either military or substituted civilian service.   6.       The Court of Cassation (Hof van Cassatie) held on 22 February 1983, inter alia, that officers who hold a judicial post are obliged to conduct themselves in an independent manner with respect to the parties in the proceedings before them and vis-à-vis all authorities.   The Court considered that it did not appear that the officer-members of the Military Court of Appeal had failed to respect their obligation to independence and impartiality.   7.       Before the Commission the applicant complained that military courts cannot be considered as independent and impartial tribunals for the trial of a civilian who, for political and conscientious reasons, refuses to perform military or substituted civilian service.   He alleged that the military courts wrongly considered him to have military status whereas he claims to have retained his civilian status by informing the authorities of his conscientious objections.   8.       The application was introduced on 17 June 1983 and registered on 3 October 1983.   9.       On 2 October 1984, the Commission decided to communicate the application to the Government under Rule 42 (2) (b) of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.   10.      The Government's observations were submitted on 7 February 1985, the applicant's observations in reply on 4 April 1985.   11.      On 10 October 1985, the Commission declared the application admissible.   12.      A hearing on the merits was held on 11 March 1986.   Part II     SOLUTION REACHED     13.      Following its decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.   14.      In accordance with its usual practice the Commission instructed its Secretary to contact the parties for this purpose. Following an exchange of correspondence channelled through the Secretary of the Commission the Agent of the Government, by letter of 30 March 1987, made the following declaration:           "... j'ai l'honneur de porter à votre connaissance         les modalités concrètes soumises par le Gouvernement         en vue de parvenir à un règlement amiable dans         l'affaire NYSSEN.           1° M. NYSSEN ayant déjà subi 306 jours de détention les         deux mois d'emprisonnement qu'il lui restait à subir         avant de pouvoir être libéré comme les insoumis se trouvant         dans son cas seraient remplacés par un service de même         durée (deux mois) à effectuer à temps plein dans l'un des         organismes ou services repris à l'article 21 des lois         coordonnées du 20 février 1980 portant le statut des         objecteurs de conscience, étant entendu qu'il aurait à         rechercher lui-même l'organisme ou le service disposé à         l'employer pendant cette durée.           2° En cas d'accord avec cette proposition, M. NYSSEN         ferait parvenir à l'Auditeur général près la Cour         militaire, palais de Justice, place Poelaert à         1000-Bruxelles, un écrit par lequel il s'engagerait à         effectuer ce service dans le délai d'un an à dater de         l'arrêté de grâce qui serait alors proposé au Roi.           3° Dès réception de cet écrit, l'Auditeur général         introduirait une proposition d'arrêté de grâce sous         condition résolutoire tendant à l'octroi d'un sursis         de cinq ans pour l'emprisonnement restant à subir, la         condition étant de remplir l'engagement prévu au 2°         ci-dessus.           4° Suite à l'arrêté de grâce, M. NYSSEN serait désignalé         au B.C.S. et pourrait en conséquence rentrer librement en         Belgique.   Il disposerait alors du délai d'un an pour faire         parvenir à l'Auditeur général une attestation émanant de         l'un des organismes visés au 1° et certifiant que le service         a bien été effectué à temps plein pendant deux mois.           5° A défaut de recevoir cette attestation dans le delai         prévu, l'Auditeur général prendrait les dispositions         nécessaires pour faire exécuter l'emprisonnement restant         à subir par M. NYSSEN.           Le Gouvernement rappelle enfin que M. NYSSEN, en         application des articles 621 et suivants du Code         d'instruction criminelle et à condition de respecter         les conditions prévues par ceux-ci, jouit de la         possibilité de solliciter sa réhabilitation dont l'octroi,         toutefois, relève de la seule décision des autorités         judiciaires."           (Translation)         "...   I have the honour to inform you of the precise         proposals made by the Government with a view to securing         a friendly settlement in the Nyssen case.           1) As Mr.   Nyssen has already spent 306 days in detention,         the two months of imprisonment which he still has to         undergo before he can be discharged like other         objectors in a comparable position, will be replaced by         full-time substituted civilian service of the same length         (two months).   This substituted civilian service must be         performed in one of the organisations or services set out         in Article 21 of the co-ordinated laws of 20 February 1980,         containing the statute of conscientious objectors.   It will         be understood that the applicant himself will have to find         an organisation or service which is prepared to accept him         for these months.           2) If Mr.   Nyssen agrees with this proposition, he should         send a letter to the Auditeur General attached to the         Military Court, Palace of Justice, Place Poelaert,         1000-Brussels, undertaking to perform this service within         a period of one year from the date of the pardon, which         will thereupon be put to the King.           3) On receipt of the letter referred to above, the Auditeur         General will request a pardon which would grant the         applicant a suspension of five years of the remainder of         the term of imprisonment, such pardon being conditioned on         the fulfilment of the undertaking referred to at paragraph         2) above.           4) Following the act of pardon, Mr.   Nyssen will be removed         from the list of the B.C.S. (Bulletin Central de         Signalement) and will consequently be able to return to         Belgium freely.   He will have one year to send the Auditeur         General a declaration from one of the organisations referred         to at paragraph 1) above, certifying that the substituted         civilian service has actually been performed full-time for         two months.             5) If the Auditeur General does not receive this declaration         within the period agreed, he will take the necessary measures         to execute the remainder of the term of imprisonment to be         served by Mr.   Nyssen.           The Government finally recalls that, pursuant to Article 621         et seq. of the Code of Criminal Instruction and on condition         that the above-mentioned conditions have been fulfilled,         Mr.   Nyssen has the possibility to request his rehabilitation,         which depends, however, solely on a decision by the judicial         authorities.           ..."   15.      The applicant's representative, by letter of 14 May 1987, submitted the following declaration on behalf of the applicant:           "With reference to Application No. 10574/83 pending         before the Commission of Human Rights and in view of         declaration made by the Belgian Government on         30 March 1987, I hereby accept, on behalf of Mr.   K. Nyssen,         the offer contained in that declaration and declare the         Application No. 10574/83 to be settled.           My declaration is made in view of the settlement within         the meaning of Article 28 (b) of the European Convention         on Human Rights which has been reached in co-operation         with the European Commission of Human Rights in the         proceedings concerning this application."   16.      On 8 July 1987 the Commission noted that the parties had reached agreement regarding the terms of settlement.   The Commission found, having regard to Article 28 (b) of the Convention, that a friendly settlement of the present application had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.   Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission          (H.C. KRÜGER)                                (C.A. NØRGAARD)