CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;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 }                        EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS                               SECOND CHAMBER                          Application No. 15942/90                                    D.R.                                   against                               the Netherlands   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                        (adopted on 13 October 1993)                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                    Page   INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1   PART I:   STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2   PART II: SOLUTION REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3                                INTRODUCTION   1.     This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the Convention of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by D.R. against the Netherlands on 21 August 1989.   It was registered on 4 January 1990 under file No. 15942/90.   2.     The applicant was represented before the Commission by Mr. Th.A. de Roos, a lawyer practising at Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. K. de Vey Mestdagh, of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   3.     On 14 October 1992 the Commission (Second Chamber) 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 (Second Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 13 October 1993 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                  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                                   PART I                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   5.     The applicant is a Dutch citizen born in 1970.   At the time of the introduction of the application, he was detained at the State Institution for Youngsters (Rijksinstituut voor Jongeren) in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.   6.     On 6 January 1986 the Amsterdam Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) sentenced the applicant to placement in an institution for special treatment (inrichting voor buitengewone behandeling) on charges of manslaughter.   7.     On 6 June 1989 the Public Prosecutor (Officier van Justitie) filed a prolongation request.   At the hearing before the Regional Court, the applicant's representative objected that the applicant's detention was unlawful since the initial order had expired and that therefore no prolongation could be ordered, as the Public Prosecutor introduced his prolongation request more than two years after the initial order.   On 15 June 1989 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention.   8.     The applicant complained before the Commission that there had been a violation of Article 5 paras. 1 and 4 of the Convention in that his detention was unlawful and in that the lawfulness of his detention was not speedily reviewed.                                   PART II                              SOLUTION REACHED   9.     Following the decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission (Second Chamber) 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.   10.    In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to discuss with them the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   11.    Between 8 December 1992 and 7 September 1993 the parties exchanged various letters with a view to such a settlement.   12.    By letter of 15 June 1993 the Netherlands Government informed the Commission that, in order to reach a friendly settlement, they were willing to pay an ex gratia amount of 2.000,- Dutch guilders to the applicant and the costs incurred by him in the proceedings before the Commission insofar as they are not covered by legal aid granted at domestic level and/or by the Council of Europe.   13.    By letter of 7 September 1993 the applicant's representative informed the Commission that the applicant accepted the Government's proposals and that a specification of the applicant's legal costs would follow.   14.    At its session on 13 October 1993 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.   15.    For these reasons, the Commission (Second Chamber) adopted this Report.   Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber             (K. ROGGE)                            (S. TRECHSEL)