CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 7 octobre 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 }                        AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 11294/84                       by E.B.                       against the Netherlands           The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 7 October 1987 the following members being present:                 MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   M.A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES                   E. BUSUTTIL                   A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                   A. WEITZEL                   H.G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS                   G. BATLINER                   H. VANDENBERGHE              Mrs.   G.H. THUNE              Sir   Basil HALL              Mr.   F. MARTINEZ              Mrs.   J. LIDDY                Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER Secretary to the Commission           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 5 November 1984 by E.B. against the Netherlands and registered on 10 December 1984 under file N° 11294/84;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having regard to the decision of the Commission of 18 July 1986 to communicate the application to the respondent Government;           Having regard to the written observations of the Government;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:   &_THE FACTS&S           The facts of the case as they have been submitted by the applicant may be summarised as follows:           The applicant is a Dutch citizen born in 1964 and at present residing at V., the Netherlands.   In the proceedings before the Commission she is represented by Mr.   L. Vellerman, a lawyer practising at Amsterdam.           It appears that the applicant, who at the relevant time was employed with a cleaning company, received sickness benefits on the basis of the Health Insurance Act 1913 (Ziektewet) from 12 October 1982 until 6 June 1983.           On 6 June 1983, the Occupational Association for Retail, Craftsmen and Housewives (Bedrijfsvereniging von Detailhandel, Ambachten en Huisvrouwen) of Utrecht decided that the applicant was no longer entitled to sickness benefits since she could no longer be considered unfit for work.           The applicant, on 30 June 1983, appealed against this decision to the Appeals Board (Raad van Beroep) of Amsterdam since she considered that she was still prevented from working because of illness.           On 16 December 1983, the President of the Appeals Board declared the applicant's appeal ill-founded in accordance with the advice of two permanent medical experts consulted by him in accordance with Section 135 of the Appeals Act (Beroepswet).           The applicant thereupon filed an objection (verzet) against this decision, claiming that she had been denied a fair hearing, contrary to the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.           However, on 11 April 1984, the Appeals Board declared the applicant's objection inadmissible, since none of the grounds set out in Section 142 para. 1 of the Appeals Act applied.           Under this provision no appeal is possible unless:   -        the permanent medical expert had already dealt with the case         in another capacity;   -        the permanent medical expert failed to consult both sides and         to examine the person concerned as Article 137 of the Act         prescribes;   -        the decision of the President does not concern the dispute;   -        the President has not followed the advice of the permanent         medical expert.           On 17 April 1984, the applicant appealed against this decision to the Central Appeals Board (Centrale Raad van Beroep) at Utrecht, but her appeal was declared inadmissible on 16 May 1984, on the sole ground that Section 142 para. 1 of the Appeals Act provides that decisions to declare an objection inadmissible are not subject to any appeal.   &_COMPLAINTS&S           The applicant complains that she did not have a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal concerning her claim under the Health Insurance Act.   She contends that the President of the Appeals Board determined her civil rights without hearing her and on the basis of reports submitted by the permanent medical experts of the Appeals Board.           She also claims that she had no further possibility of having her civil rights determined after a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.           The applicant has invoked Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.       &_PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION&S           The application was introduced on 5 November 1984 and registered on 10 December 1984.           In view of the similarity of the issues the Commission adjourned its examination of the case pending the judgment of the Court in the Feldbrugge case (Judgment of 29 May 1986).           On 18 July 1986 the Commission decided to bring the application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application in the light of the Court's judgment in the Feldbrugge case.           The Government's observations reached the Secretariat on 16 October 1986 and were sent to the applicant's lawyer, who was invited to send any written observations in reply before 15 December 1986.           Since no reply was received the Secretariat sent a reminder on 19 February 1987, drawing the applicant's attention to Rule 44 para. 1 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure which provides, inter alia, that the Commission may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances, in particular the applicant's failure to observe time-limits set, lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.           Having received no reply, the Secretariat sent the applicant a letter by registered post on 10 July 1987 requesting her to inform the Secretariat whether she intended to pursue the application and warning her of the consequence that the application would be struck off the list should no answer be received.           The Secretariat again received no reply.     &_REASONS FOR THE DECISION&S             The Commission considers that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing her application and sees no reason relating to the general interest to continue an examination of the application since similar issues have already been examined by the Commission and the European Court of Human Rights in the Feldbrugge case (Feldbrugge v. the Netherlands, Comm.   Report 9.5.84, Eur.   Court H.R., judgment of 29 May 1986, Series A No. 99).             Having regard to Rule 44 para. 1 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission             &_DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.&S       Secretary to the Commission                President of the Commission           (H.C. KRÜGER)                                (C.A. NØRGAARD)