CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 24 octobre 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. 19964/92                          Martinus Beerden                                 against                           the Netherlands                      REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                    (adopted on 24 October 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 Mr. Martinus Beerden against the Netherlands on 11 February 1992.   It was registered on 11 May 1992 under file No. 19964/92.        The applicant was represented by Mr. H.F.T. Pennarts, a lecturer at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam.        The Government of the Netherlands were represented by their Agent, Mr. K. de Vey Mestdagh, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   2.    On 22 February 1995 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 24 October 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                J.-C. SOYER                H.G. SCHERMERS                F. MARTINEZ                L. LOUCAIDES                J.-C. GEUS                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                J. MUCHA                D. SVÁBY                P. LORENZEN                               PART I                       STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   4.    The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1946 and resident in Rotterdam.   5.    On 7 May 1991 the Bureau for Legal Aid (Bureau voor Rechtshulp) of Rotterdam assigned a lawyer to the applicant in proceedings concerning the applicant's dismissal. Even though the assigned lawyer felt that the applicant did not qualify for legal aid, she agreed to provide legal assistance under the legal aid scheme unless it would appear that the assignment had been issued on the basis of incorrect or incomplete facts concerning the applicant's financial means.   6.    Following the conclusion of the dismissal proceedings before the District Court judge (Kantonrechter) of Rotterdam on 15 July 1991, the lawyer requested the Legal Aid Bureau to withdraw the assignment on 6 August 1991. By letter of 13 August 1991, the Bureau for Legal Aid rejected the request, holding that the applicant's income had been correctly assessed according to established policy in cases of (imminent) dismissal and that the Legal Aid Act (Wet Rechtsbijstand aan On- en Minvermogenden) did not provide for a possibility to withdraw an assignment in cases where proceedings had been decided in favour of the legal aid beneficiary.   7.    On 19 August 1991, the lawyer requested intervention (tussenkomst) by the President of the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Rotterdam, requesting him to withdraw the assignment. The lawyer sent a copy of this request to the applicant and the Bureau for Legal Aid.   8.    On 29 August 1991, the President decided to withdraw the assignment of a legal aid lawyer to the applicant, holding that, notwithstanding the Bureau for Legal Aid's established policy, it had appeared from the documents submitted that the applicant's monthly income amply exceeded the income limits of the Legal Aid Act. The applicant was not heard by the President or given the opportunity to react to the lawyer's request. As a consequence, the applicant had to pay 5,092 Dutch guilders to his lawyer. According to the law no appeal lay against the President's decision.   9.    Before the Commission the applicant complained under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that he did not have a fair and public hearing in the proceedings which led to the withdrawal of the assignment of a legal aid lawyer. The applicant further complained that the absence of a legal remedy against this decision violated Article 13 of the Convention.                               PART II                          SOLUTION REACHED   10.   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.   11.   In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.   12.   Following an exchange of correspondence, the Commission considered the question of a settlement on 4 July 1995, and made specific settlement proposals. By letters of 7 August and 4 October 1995 the Government informed the Commission that they were willing to accept the terms of the proposal. By letter received on 13 September 1995 the applicant informed the Commission that he also agreed to a settlement of the case on the proposed terms.   13.   The settlement provides as follows:        1)    the payment by the Netherlands Government to the applicant           of 5,092 Dutch guilders, minus 60 Dutch guilders which the           applicant would have been liable to pay as his own           contribution in case the assignment of the legal aid lawyer           had not been withdrawn, plus 1,000 Dutch guilders as           compensation for the loss of interest, thus 6,032 Dutch           guilders; and        2)    the payment of 1,500 Dutch guilders by the Netherlands           Government to the applicant for costs and expenses incurred           in the proceedings before the Commission.   14.   At its session on 24 October 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.   15.   For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.   Secretary to the Second Chamber    President of the Second Chamber         (M.-T. SCHOEPFER)                     (H. DANELIUS)