CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 1 avril 1992

.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. 19084/91                       by Louis HAGEMANN                       against the Netherlands           The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 1 April 1992, the following members being present:                MM.   S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   A. WEITZEL                   J.-C. SOYER                   H. G. SCHERMERS                   H. DANELIUS              Mrs. G. H. THUNE              MM.   F. MARTINEZ                   L. LOUCAIDES                   J.-C. GEUS                   A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO                Mr.   K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second Chamber           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 11 October 1991 by Louis HAGEMANN against the Netherlands and registered on 18 November 1991 under file No. 19084/91;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1955.   When introducing his application, he was detained in a prison at Maastricht, the Netherlands.   He is represented before the Commission by Mr. H.E.G. Peters, a lawyer practising at Sittard, the Netherlands.         The facts as presented by the applicant may be summarised as follows.         On 12 December 1990, while the applicant was serving a prison sentence at Sittard, the Prison Director decided that he should be separated from the other prisoners for a period of 30 days.   On 15 December 1990, the applicant appealed against this decision to the Complaints Board (beklagcommissie) at the prison at Sittard.   A hearing of the appeal was held at the prison at Sittard on 26 March 1991.   The applicant was then transferred to another prison, but he had been heard on his appeal in that prison.   On 26 March 1991, the Complaints Board declared the appeal well-founded as regards that part of the measure of separation which exceeded 14 days but unfounded as to the rest.         The Prison Director as well as the applicant appealed against the decision of the Complaints Board.   The appeal was examined by the Appeals Board of the Penitentiary Section of the Central Board for Criminal Law Application (beroepscommissie uit de sectie gevangeniswezen van de Centrale Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing) on 28 May and 25 June 1991.   The applicant appeared before the Board on the former and his lawyer on the latter date.   In its decision of 3 September 1991, the Board rejected the applicant's appeal but declared the Prison Director's appeal well-founded, annulled part of the decision of the Complaints Board and declared the applicant's appeal against the Prison Director's decision in its entirety unfounded.   The Appeals Board considered that the Prison Director's decision was justified under Section 24 para. 3 (b) of the Prison Ordinance (Gevangenismaatregel), which provides that separation can be ordered when a prisoner, pending his transferral, cannot, according to the reasonable judgment of the Director, be kept under control, if he lives together with other prisoners.         In a separate appeal of 18 December 1990, the applicant had appealed against a ministerial decision to transfer him from Sittard to a prison at Veenhuizen.   That appeal was rejected by the Appeals Board in a separate decision of 4 September 1991.     COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicant complains of a violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention in that his appeal against the Prison Director's decision of 12 December 1990 was not heard within a reasonable time. He points out that the Complaints Board took its decision on 26 March 1991, i.e. about three and a half months after he had lodged his appeal.   In the meantime, he had been transferred to another prison in a different part of the country where his family, who lived near Sittard, had great difficulties in visiting him.   As his tranferral to another part of the country was a serious interference with his private life, the appeal should have been heard much earlier than was actually done.   2.     The applicant complains of a further violation of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention in that he did not get a fair hearing of his appeal.   In fact, it appears from the decision of the Complaints Board and the Appeals Board that the Prison Director had based his decision to separate the applicant from other prisoners on rumours, according to which the applicant might be involved in the preparation of subversive acts or of an attempt to escape from prison by means of hostage-taking.   However, he was never informed of these rumours and therefore had no possibility to defend himself against them.   THE LAW         The applicant complains of violations of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention in that his appeal was not heard within a reasonable time and in that he did not have a fair hearing, since he could not defend himself against the rumours upon which the decision to separate him from other prisoners was based.         Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention provides that, in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by a court.         The question arises whether this provision is applicable in the circumstances of the present case.         The Commission notes, in this respect, that the decision to separate the applicant from other prisoners was not a sanction for any offence which the applicant had committed during his imprisonment.   It follows that in the proceedings concerned the applicant was not charged with a criminal offence within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.         It is true that a person's placement during imprisonment and the regime under which he serves his sentence may have certain repercussions on his private life and on the opportunities he will have of maintaining contact with his family.   Nevertheless, the Commission considers that the decisions which the prison administration takes on such matters should be regarded as administrative decisions which do not determine the prisoner's civil rights and obligations within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention.         Consequently, Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention is not applicable to the circumstances of the present case, and the application is to be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.     Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber                 (K. ROGGE)                            (S. TRECHSEL)