CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 26 juin 1996

.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. 23003/93                             Erik Theodorus HUMMELS                                     against                                 the Netherlands                            REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                          (adopted on 26 June 1996)                                TABLE OF CONTENTS     INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1     PART I   :   STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2     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 Erik Theodorus Hummels against the Netherlands on 2 November 1993.   It was registered on 24 November 1993 under file No. 23003/93.         The Government of the Netherlands were represented by their Agent, Mr. H. von Hebel, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   2.     On 28 February 1996   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 26 June 1996 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                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN                  E. BIELIUNAS                                     PART I                             STATEMENT OF THE FACTS     4.     The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1949 and resident in Utrecht, the Netherlands. He is a practising lawyer by profession.   5.     On 8 April 1992, the Legal Aid Office (Buro voor Rechtshulp) at the Hague appointed the applicant public defence counsel in cassation proceedings before the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) in the case of K., who had filed an appeal in cassation against his criminal conviction by the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) of 's-Hertogenbosch. The Supreme Court decided K.'s appeal in cassation on 25 May 1993.   6.     By letter of 9 June 1993, the applicant submitted the declaration of his fees in K.'s case to the Registrar of the Supreme Court. As he was of the opinion that this case had been an extremely laborious one, he requested that Section 33 or the Order on Fees for Legal Aid in Criminal Cases (Besluit Vergoedingen Rechtsbijstand in Strafzaken, hereinafter referred to as "the Order") be applied, which provides for a higher fee to be determined by the Registrar in cases where the standard fee is apparently disproportionate to the work spent on the case.   7.     On 12 October 1993, the Registrar of the Supreme Court decided to grant the applicant an amount consisting of the standard fee, a travelling allowance, a mileage allowance and value-added tax. The Registrar had not applied Section 33 of the Order.   8.     The Registrar's decision was accompanied by an intervention decision (tussenkomstbeslissing) dated 22 June 1993 of Supreme Court judge B. This decision had been taken pursuant to Section 29 of the Order according to which the lawyer involved, who does not agree with the Registrar's decision concerning the determination of the fee, may request the intervention of the President of the court whose Registrar determined the fee.   9.     By letter of 15 October 1993, the applicant requested the President of the Supreme Court to intervene in the matter pursuant to Section 29 of the Order. The applicant submitted that it had been for the Registrar to decide on a request for the application of Section 33 of the Order and that the President of the court or a judge appointed by him could only become involved if the counsel concerned decided to request an intervention. The applicant also requested that he be heard by the President of the Supreme Court and that the procedure to be applied was completely in accordance with the rules and principles laid down in Article 6 of the Convention.   10.    In his letter of 26 October 1993, the acting President of the Supreme Court, judge H., rejected the applicant's request. He considered that judge B. had apparently and not unreasonably interpreted the applicant's letter of 9 June 1993 as a request for intervention in case the Registrar decided not to apply Section 33 of the Order. In view of the fact that judge B. had already given an opinion pursuant to Section 29 of the Order, judge H. found there was no room for a new intervention decision.   11.    Before the Commission the applicant complained that the intervention proceedings were not in conformity with the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention. He submitted that in these proceedings there had been no oral and public hearing, that the proceedings had not been adversarial, and that the principle of equality of arms had not been respected.                                     PART II                                SOLUTION REACHED     12.    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.   13.    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.   14.    By letter of 7 May 1996, the Government notified the Commission that they had agreed to pay the applicant 1,800 Dutch guilders in full and final settlement of the matter, this amount making up the difference between the fee the applicant would have received in case all the hours spent by him on the case before the Supreme Court could have been declared and the standard fee the applicant did receive for this case.   15.     On 8 May 1996, the applicant confirmed to the Commission that he accepted the Government's offer.   16.    At its session on 26 June 1996, 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)