CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 17 janvier 1995

.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. 15553/89                          Jean Helena Jacobus NICOL                                   against                                 the Netherlands                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                        (adopted on 17 January 1995)                              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 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by J.H.J. Nicol against the Netherlands on 23 May 1989. The application was registered on 28 September 1989 under file No. 15553/89.         The Government of the Netherlands were represented by their Agent, Mr. K. de Vey Mestdagh, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   2.     On 11 May 1994 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."   3.     The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 17 January 1995 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:         Mr.   H. DANELIUS, President       Mrs. G.H. THUNE       MM.   G. JÖRUNDSSON            S. TRECHSEL            J.-C. SOYER            H.G. SCHERMERS            F. MARTINEZ            L. LOUCAIDES            J.-C. GEUS            M.A. NOWICKI            I. CABRAL BARRETO            J. MUCHA            D. SVÁBY                                   PART I                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   4.     The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1944 and residing at Maastricht, the Netherlands.   5.     In two separate judgments the Regional Court (Arrondissements- rechtbank) of Maastricht convicted the applicant on 22 September 1987, in absentia and on appeal, of having driven a technically unfit and uninsured car on the public road. The applicant filed appeals in cassation against these judgments with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad).   6.     The applicant submitted that, in spite of several requests, he was not provided with copies of the judgments of 22 September 1987 of the Regional Court.   7.     On 3 January 1989 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's appeals in cassation.   8.     Before the Commission the applicant complained under Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention that he did not receive a fair trial, as he was not provided with copies of the judgments of the Regional Court and therefore could not properly prepare his defence in the cassation proceedings.                                   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 Secretary to the Chamber, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   11.    By letter dated 3 November 1994 the Government notified the Commission that they were prepared to make an ex gratia payment of Dfl 500,- to the applicant. The Government also informed the Commission that the applicant's name does not appear in either police records or the Criminal Records Register in respect of the offences in question.   12.    On 6 December 1994 the applicant informed the Commission that he accepted the Government's offer.   13.    At its session on 17 January 1995, 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.   16.    For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.   Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber           (K. ROGGE)                              (H. DANELIUS)