CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 8 décembre 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                                 SECOND CHAMBER                            Application No. 17132/90                                       P.                                     against                                 the NETHERLANDS                            REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 8 December 1992)                                TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                         Page   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 P. against the Netherlands on 29 August 1990.   It was registered on 7 September 1990 under file No. 17132/90.   2.     The applicant was represented before the Commission by Mrs. G.E.M. Later, a lawyer practising in The Hague, the Netherlands.   The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. K. de Vey Mestdagh, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   3.     On 8 January 1992 the European Commission of Human Rights declared the application admissible with the exception of a complaint under Article 14 of the Convention.   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."   4.     On 30 March 1992 the Commission referred the application to the Second Chamber.   5.     The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 8 December 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, 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                                     PART I                             STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   6.     The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1967 and resident at 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.   7.     After the applicant had been committed to a mental hospital on 13 February 1990 by a provisional order of the Burgomaster of 's-Hertogenbosch, she signed a request to the District Court judge (Kantonrechter) in 's-Hertogenbosch for placement in a mental hospital by reason of mental illness.   8.     On 20 February 1990, the District Court judge visited her at the hospital where she was interned on the basis of the Burgomaster's order.   She was then heard by the judge, and she objected to being compulsorily interned.   She was not assisted by a lawyer.   9.     On the same day, the District Court judge issued an order for her internment.   In his decision, he referred to a medical certificate issued under Section 16 of the Mentally Ill Persons Act (Krankzinnigenwet) by Dr. K.   The judge stated in his decision that it appeared from the minutes of the hearing of the applicant and the medical certificate that the applicant was in such a state of mental illness that there existed a danger for herself, for other persons or for the general safety of persons or property and that on account of this danger internment in a mental hospital was necessary.   10.    The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), but her appeal was rejected, the main reason being that a District Court judge's decision on a matter of this kind was not subject to appeal. However, the Supreme Court also made some comments on the question whether the judge had been justified in considering that Dr. K. had not been treating the applicant at that time. As, in his certificate, Dr. K. had indicated another doctor as being the doctor treating the applicant, it was understandable, in the Supreme Court's view, that the District Court judge had concluded that the applicant was not in treatment by Dr. K.   11.    The applicant complained before the Commission that there had been violations of Articles 5, 6, and 13 of the Convention in that, inter alia, she had not been assisted by a lawyer at the hearing before the District Court judge on 20 February 1990, that she had not been given access to her case-file and that persons who are deprived of their liberty by a District Court judge have no effective remedy.                                     PART II                                SOLUTION REACHED   12.    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.   13.    In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to discuss with them the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   14.    Between 20 February 1992 and 16 October 1992 the parties exchanged various letters relating to the effort to reach a friendly settlement of the case.   15.    By letter of 16 October 1992 the applicant's lawyer informed the Commission that the applicant had accepted the Government's offer to pay a total amount of 7.500 Dutch guilders to the applicant, which amount includes the applicant's legal costs, in order to attain a friendly settlement of the application.   16.    By letter of 19 October 1992 the Netherlands Government informed the Commission that they had secured a friendly settlement of the case with the applicant.   17.    At its session of 8 December 1992 the Commission (Second Chamber) noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement.   It further found, 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.   18.    For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.   Secretary to the Second Chamber     President of the Second Chamber        (K. ROGGE)                           (S. TRECHSEL)