CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 octobre 1993

.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. 19508/92                       by J.D.                       against the Netherlands           The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 13 October 1993, the following members being present:              MM.    S. TRECHSEL, President                  H. DANELIUS                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            MM.    F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO              Mr.    K. ROGGE, Secretary to the 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 28 January 1992 by J.D. against the Netherlands and registered on 11 February 1992 under file No. 19508/92;         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, born in 1963 as a Yougoslav, is a stateless person residing in Nieuwegein, the Netherlands.   Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. E.Th. Hummels, a lawyer practising at Utrecht.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.         On 20 March 1988 the applicant, whilst driving under the influence of alcohol, collided with another car on the motorway.   He told the driver of the car that he would not wait for the police and drove away.   The driver called the police and followed the applicant. Eventually, three police officers forced the applicant into the kerb. One of them, in his capacity of assistant Public Prosecutor (Hulpofficier van Justitie), ordered the applicant to submit to a bloodtest whilst informing him that a refusal would amount to a criminal offence.   The applicant refused to undergo the bloodtest as he wished to go to hospital first to have his bruises examined.          The police took the applicant to the police-station, handcuffed him and put him in a cell for five to six hours.   His driving licence was taken away and he was subsequently interrogated.   He was not brought to hospital and his alleged request to see his general practitioner was not granted either.         Some six hours after his arrest he was released.         On 5 July 1988 the applicant was summoned to appear before the Magistrate (Politierechter) to the Utrecht Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) on 2 November 1988 on charges of having committed a hit-and-run accident whilst under the influence of alcohol. At the hearing, the applicant, relying on Article 3 of the Convention, argued that the police submitted him to inhuman treatment by proceeding with the investigation without bringing him first to hospital.   The Magistrate dismissed this plea on the ground that the applicant had failed to show that he asked to be brought to hospital since from the procès-verbal it only appeared that he asked for his general practitioner.   The applicant also stated that he had not been drunk. The Magistrate convicted the applicant and sentenced him to two weeks' imprisonment with a probation period of two years, a fine of 1.000,- Dutch guilders or alternatively 20 days' imprisonment and to a 9 months' prohibition of driving with deduction of the time during which his licence had been taken away.         Against this decision, the applicant lodged an appeal with the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof).   At the hearing on 30 October 1990, the applicant complained under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention of the length of the proceedings.   He further complained that the police submitted him to inhuman treatment by proceeding with the investigation without bringing him first to hospital.   In its decision of 8 November 1990, the Court of Appeal dismissed the first complaint on the ground that although an undesirably long period had elapsed between the filing of the appeal and the hearing before the Court of Appeal, this period was nevertheless not unreasonably long.   As to the alleged inhuman treatment, the Court of Appeal held that the mere fact that the applicant had asked to see his general practitioner does not not oblige the police to stop their investigation.         The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and the sentence pronounced by the Regional Court.         The Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) rejected the applicant's plea of nullity on 7 January 1993.     COMPLAINTS   1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that his case was not decided "within a reasonable time", in particular since two years elapsed between the Magistrate's decision and the hearing on appeal.   2.     The applicant also submits that after the accident, whilst being in pain, he was handcuffed and put in a cell for five to six hours, despite his request to see his general practitioner.   He complains that the police, by nevertheless proceeding with the investigation after this request, subjected him to inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.     THE LAW   1.     The applicant also complains that his case was not decided "within a reasonable time", in particular since two years elapsed between the introduction of the appeal and the hearing before the Court of Appeal.   He invokes Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention which provides insofar as relevant:         "1.   In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him,       everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a       reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal       established by law."         The Commission finds that further information is required concerning this complaint.   It therefore decides to give notice of this complaint to the respondent Government in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2(b) of its Rules of Procedure and to invite them to submit their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of this part of the application.   2.     The applicant also submits that after the accident, whilst being in pain, he was handcuffed and put in a cell for five to six hours, despite his request to see his general practitioner.   He complains that the police, by nevertheless proceeding with the investigation after this request, subjected him to inhuman treatment.   He relies on Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention which prohibits torture and inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment.           The Commission recalls that in order to fall within the scope of this provision, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity (see, amongst others, No. 10142/82, Dec. 8.7.85, D.R. 42 p. 86).         It does not find that the applicant's detention in a police station as described by him amounts to ill-treatment contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.   Insofar as the applicant complains that the police proceeded with the investigation despite his request to see his general practitioner, the Commission notes that the applicant wished to have his bruises examined, but does not consider that the delay caused by the police raises an issue under Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention.         It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission unanimously           DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's complaint       concerning the length of the criminal proceedings;         DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.     Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber            (K. ROGGE)                            (S. TRECHSEL)