CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 10 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                            Application No. 18091/91                                       W.                                     against                                 the NETHERLANDS                            REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 10 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 W. against the Netherlands on 4 March 1991.   It was registered on 16 April 1991 under file No. 18091/91.   2.     The applicant was represented before the Commission by Mr. G.P. Hamer, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. K. de Vey Mestdagh, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   3.     On 11 May 1992 the European Commission of Human Rights declared the application admissible.   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.     The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 10 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.    C.A. NØRGAARD, President                   S. TRECHSEL                   F. ERMACORA                   G. SPERDUTI                   E. BUSUTTIL                   G. JÖRUNDSSON                   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   5.     The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1949 and residing in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.   6.     On or about 29 September 1988, the applicant was arrested as suspected of theft.   On 6 October 1988, the Magistrate (politierechter) of Amsterdam found him guilty of one theft, acquitted him of another theft with which he had also been charged and sentenced him to two months' imprisonment.   On the same day, the applicant was released from detention on remand.   7.     Both the applicant and the public prosecutor appealed to the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) of Amsterdam.   On 20 November 1989, the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the police judge, found the applicant guilty of both thefts and sentenced him to five months' imprisonment with deduction of the time spent in detention on remand.   8.     On the applicant's behalf, his lawyer appealed to the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad).   The lawyer also informed the registry of the Supreme Court that he was the applicant's lawyer, although this information was not strictly necessary, since he had already represented the applicant before both the Magistrate and the Court of Appeal.   9.     As a reply, the registry of the Supreme Court informed the lawyer that the applicant's case had not yet arrived at the Court. Subsequently, the lawyer was not informed either of the arrival of the case-file or of the date of the hearing in the case.   10.    As from 13 June 1990, the applicant was detained on remand in connection with another criminal case.   During his detention a summons for the hearing before the Supreme Court was sent to his home address.   He did not receive this letter, and it was not until about 15 February 1991 that he was informed that he would not be released at that time, because he had to serve a sentence of five months' imprisonment, the Supreme Court having rejected his appeal on 9 October 1990.   11.    The applicant complained before the Commission that there had been violations of Article 5 para. 1 and Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention in that his detention had not been ordered in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and his right to defend himself had not been respected.                                     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 27 May 1992 and 23 October 1992 the parties exchanged various letters and considered a proposal made by the Commission with a view to such a settlement.   15.    By letter of 13 October 1992 the Netherlands Government informed the Commission that, in order to attain a friendly settlement, they were willing to pay a total amount of 10.000 Dutch guilders to the applicant, including the applicant's legal costs of 5,332.50 Dutch guilders, on the condition that the applicant specified the costs he had to bear in relation to the procedure before the Commission.   16.    By letter of 23 October 1992 the applicant's lawyer informed the Commission that the applicant accepted the Government's proposals.   He also submitted a specification of the applicant's legal costs.   17.    At its session on 10 December 1992 the Commission 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 Commission         President of the Commission        (H.C. KRÜGER)                       (C.A. NØRGAARD)