CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 5 décembre 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. 20929/92                        Johannes Alexander Ten Berge                                   against                               the Netherlands                            REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                        (adopted on 5 December 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 Johannes Alexander Ten Berge against the Netherlands on 9 October 1992.   It was registered on 12 November 1992 under file No. 20929/92.         The applicant was represented by Mr. G. Spong, a lawyer practising in The Hague.         The Government of the Netherlands were represented by their Agent, Mr. K. de Vey Mestdagh, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   2.     On 18 May 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 5 December 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                  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 1967 and resident at The Hague.   5.     On 27 December 1988, the applicant was arrested and subsequently detained on remand on suspicion of having committed several offences.   6.     On 11 April 1989, the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of The Hague convicted the applicant and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment, less the time spent in detention on remand.   7.     On 19 July 1990, the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) of The Hague quashed the Regional Court's judgment, convicted the applicant and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment, less the time spent in detention on remand.   On 23 July 1990, the applicant filed an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad).   8.     On 7 October 1991, the Court of Appeal's registrar (griffier) sent the case-file to the Supreme Court, where it was received on 9 October 1991.   9.     The Supreme Court started its examination of the case on 24 March 1992 and, on 8 July 1992, rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation.   10.    Before the Commission the applicant complained under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that the criminal proceedings against him were not determined within a reasonable time, whereas he remained in detention throughout the criminal proceedings against him.                                   PART II                              SOLUTION REACHED   11.    Following the decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission 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.   12.    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.   13.    By letters of 26 June 1995 and 5 July 1995 respectively, the parties indicated their willingness, in principle, to reach a friendly settlement.   14.    The applicant's representative made proposals on 5 July 1995, to which the Government reacted on 22 August 1995. The parties further considered a proposal put forward by the Commission.   15.    Finally the applicant's representative notified the Commission, by letter received on 16 November 1995, that the applicant was prepared to accept a payment by the respondent Government of an amount of 4.000 Dutch guilders in full and final settlement of the matter.   By letter received on 20 November 1995, the Government informed the Commission that they accepted to settle the case on this condition.   16.    At its session on 5 December 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.   17.    For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.   Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber         (M.-T. SCHOEPFER)                         (H. DANELIUS)