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. 23699/94                                   S.D.R.                                   against                               the Netherlands                          REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 24 October 1995)                              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 S.D.R. against the Netherlands on 4 March 1994.   It was registered on 17 March 1994 under file No. 23699/94.         The applicant was represented by Mr. B.R. Angad Gaur, a lawyer practising in The Hague.         The Government of the Netherlands were represented by their Agent, Mr. K. de Vey Mestdagh of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   2.     On 4 July 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 1944, and resides at The Hague. Before the Commission he is represented by Mr. B.R. Angad Gaur, a lawyer practising in The Hague.   5.     On 20 December 1991, the Magistrate (Politierechter) at the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of The Hague convicted the applicant, in absentia, of driving under the influence of alcohol and sentenced him to two weeks' imprisonment and twelve months' disqualification from driving a motor vehicle. The applicant filed an appeal against the Magistrate's judgment with the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) of The Hague. He was summoned to appear before the Court of Appeal on 13 January 1993.   6.     On 13 January 1993, the applicant did not appear before the Court of Appeal. His lawyer, however, was present. The Court of Appeal declared the applicant in default of appearance. Although the minutes of the hearing do not state this, the applicant alleges that his lawyer asked for the Court of Appeal's permission to conduct the applicant's defence.   7.     On the same day, the Court of Appeal quashed the Magistrate's judgment on technical grounds, convicted the applicant, in absentia, of driving under the influence of alcohol and sentenced him to two weeks' imprisonment and twelve months' disqualification from driving a motor vehicle.   8.     The applicant's subsequent appeal in cassation, in which he complained that the Court of Appeal had not allowed his lawyer to conduct his defence in his absence, was rejected on 30 November 1993 by the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad).   9.     Before the Commission the applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that as, before the Court of Appeal, his lawyer had not been allowed to conduct his defence he had not received a fair trial in the determination of the criminal charges against him.                                   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.    The Government notified the Commission, by letter dated 30 August 1995, that they were prepared to consider a friendly settlement and submitted proposals to this end. According to these proposals, the Government were willing to pay the applicant, in full and final settlement of the matter, the legal costs he had incurred in the proceedings before the Commission and an ex gratia payment of 100 Dutch guilders for non-pecuniary damages.   13.   On 2 October 1995, the applicant's representative informed the Commission that the applicant accepted the Government's offer.   14.    The parties have informed the Commission that it has been agreed between them that the legal costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Commission amount to 1,179.25 Dutch guilders.   15.    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.   16.    For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.   Secretary to the Second Chamber         President of the Second Chamber         (M.-T. SCHOEPFER)                          (H. DANELIUS)