CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 19 mai 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 }                    EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                      Application No. 12128/86                         Th.K.J.M. DIJKSTRA                               against                           the NETHERLANDS                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                       adopted on 19 May 1992                          TABLE OF CONTENTS   INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1   PART I:    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3   PART II:   SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4                            INTRODUCTION   1.    This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Th.K.J.M. Dijkstra against the Netherlands on 30 November 1985. It was registered on 29 April 1986 under file No. 12128/86.        The Government of the Netherlands were represented by their Agent, Mrs. D.S. van Heukelom, succeeded by Mr. K. de Vey Mestdagh, both of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague.   2.    On 8 April 1991 the Commission declared the complaint under Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the Convention admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible. It then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 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 at the same time 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."   3.    The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 19 May 1992 it adopted this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.   The following members were present when the Report was adopted:             MM.   S. TRECHSEL                F. ERMACORA                E. BUSUTTIL                A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                A. WEITZEL                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS                H. DANELIUS           Mrs. G.H. THUNE           Sir   Basil HALL           MM.   F. MARTINEZ                C.L. ROZAKIS           Mrs. J. LIDDY           MM.   L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M. P. PELLONPÄÄ                B. MARXER                               PART I                       STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   4.    The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1945, and residing at Maastricht, the Netherlands.   5.    On 2 December 1983 the Regional Court (Gerecht in Eerste Aanleg) of Curaçao convicted the applicant in absentia of a traffic offence, despite her earlier request to have her case adjourned in view of her imminent hospitalisation.   6.    On 25 May 1984 the decision was notified to the applicant. Her subsequent objection (verzet) was rejected on 15 June 1984 by the Regional Court for being out of time.   7.    Before the Commission the applicant complained that she did not have the opportunity to defend herself in person, invoking Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the Convention.                               PART II                          SOLUTION REACHED   8.    Following the 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 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.   9.    In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary to the Commission, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   10.   By letter of 11 March 1992, the Agent of the Government submitted the following proposal:                             "SETTLEMENT        1.    The Government will pay the applicant an amount of Dfl      1.000,- as ex gratia allowance;        2.    All documents, as far as public according to any      regulation, can be used for teaching purposes.        The above proposal is made on the explicit understanding      that it does not imply any recognition by the Government      that the Netherlands-Antillian authorities would have      treated the applicant incorrectly."   11.   On 14 April 1992 the applicant informed the Commisson that she agreed with the Government's proposal.   12.   At its session on 19 May 1992, the Commission noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.   13.   For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.   Secretary to the Commission                Vice-President of the                                               Commission        (H.C. KRÜGER)                            (S. TRECHSEL)