CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 10 septembre 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. 23737/94                              M.A.A.A. V.S.                                 against                             the Netherlands                        REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                   (adopted on 10 September 1996)                            TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                 Page   I.    THE PARTIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1      (paras. 1-3)     II.   SUMMARY OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1      (paras. 4-9)     III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION. . . . . . . . . .1      (paras. 10-22)     IV.   THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION . . . . . . . . . . . . .4      (paras. 23-24)       APPENDIX: DECISION OF THE COMMISSION AS TO THE           ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION. . . . . . . . . .5   I.    THE PARTIES   1.    This Report, which is drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 of the Convention, concerns the application brought by Mario André Antonio Alexander van Soest against the Netherlands.   2.    In the proceedings before the Commission the applicant was represented by Mr. H.G. Kersting, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam.   3.    The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr. K. de Vey Mestdagh, of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.     II.   SUMMARY OF THE FACTS   4.    The facts of the case are set out in the Commission's decision on admissibility of 4 July 1995, attached hereto as an appendix, and can be summarised as follows:   5.    On 21 October 1991, following a hearing at which neither the applicant nor his lawyer had appeared, the Magistrate (Politierechter) at the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Amsterdam convicted the applicant, in absentia, of theft and sentenced him to two months' imprisonment.   6.    The applicant filed an appeal against this judgment with the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) of Amsterdam. At the hearing before the Court of Appeal, which took place on 4 March 1993, the applicant did not appear. His lawyer, however, was present. The Court of Appeal declared the applicant in default of appearance and started its examination. The applicant's lawyer was not provided with the opportunity to conduct the defence of the applicant in view of the latter's absence.   7.    On 18 March 1993, the Court of Appeal quashed the Regional Court's judgment on technical grounds, convicted the applicant of theft and sentenced him to two months' imprisonment.   8.    The Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) rejected the applicant's appeal in cassation on 14 December 1993.   9.    Before the Commission the applicant complains that his defence lawyer was not allowed to conduct the defence in the absence of the applicant. He invokes Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention.     III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION   10.   The application was introduced on 2 May 1994 and registered on 6 May 1994.   11.   On 30 November 1994, the Commission decided, pursuant to Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite the parties to submit written observations on its admissibility and merits.   12.   The Government's observations were submitted on 16 February 1995. The applicant's representative informed the Commission on 28 April 1995 that the applicant did not wish to avail himself of the opportunity to submit observations in reply.   13.   On 4 July 1995, the Commission declared the applicant's complaint under Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention admissible. It declared inadmissible the remainder of the application.   14.   The text of the Commission's decision on admissibility was sent to the parties on 20 July 1995 and they were invited to submit such further information or observations on the merits as they wished. Neither party availed itself of this possibility.   15.   After declaring the case admissible, the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention also placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement. On 30 August 1995, the Government submitted a proposal for a friendly settlement which was transmitted to the applicant for comments. No reply having been received, the applicant's representative was informed by the Commission's Secretariat on 16 November 1995 that if no comments had been submitted by 1 December 1995 it would be assumed that the applicant saw no merit in the securing of a friendly settlement. The applicant's representative did not reply.   16.   On 6 February 1996, the Secretariat informed the applicant's representative that the letter of authority, required pursuant to Rule 43 para. 3 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, had still not been submitted. On the same day and by registered letter, the applicant was sent a letter of authority to be signed and returned by him before 26 February 1996. The applicant was informed that his application could be struck off the Commission's list of cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention.   17.   On 29 February 1996, the applicant's representative informed the Commission that the applicant had moved to a new address but that he was not aware of this address. He requested an extension of three months of the time-limit fixed for the purpose of the submission of the letter of authority.   18.   On 7 March 1996, the letter sent to the applicant on 6 February 1996 was returned to the Secretariat as the applicant had not been present at the address provided in the application form and although a notice of arrival of a registered letter had been left at this address by the postal authorities, the applicant had not collected the letter from the local post office.   19.   By letter of 20 March 1996, the applicant's representative informed the Commission of the address at which the applicant was registered as living according to the Municipal Registers (Registers van de Burgerlijke Stand) of Amsterdam. A copy of the Secretariat's letter of 6 February 1996 was sent by registered mail to this address on 25 March 1996. The applicant was requested to return the enclosed letter of authority before 9 April 1996.   20.   On 11 April 1996, the Commission decided to adjourn the examination of the merits of the application in view of the fact that the applicant's letter of authority had not yet been received. The applicant's representative was requested on 10 May 1996 to inform the Commission before 24 June 1996 whether or not a letter of authority would be forthcoming. No reply has been received.   21.   On 10 September 1996, the Commission (Second Chamber) adopted the present Report, in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.   22.   The following members were present when the Report was adopted:          Mrs.       G.H. THUNE, President      MM.        J.-C. GEUS                G. JÖRUNDSSON                A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                J.-C. SOYER                H. DANELIUS                F. MARTINEZ                L. LOUCAIDES                M.A. NOWICKI                I. CABRAL BARRETO                J. MUCHA                D. SVÁBY                P. LORENZEN                E. BIELIUNAS                E.A. ALKEMA                M. VILA AMIGÓ   IV.   THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION   23.   The Commission notes that no letter of authority as required by Rule 43 para. 3 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure has been submitted in the present case and that the applicant has failed to respond to requests to provide the Commission with such a document.   24.   Having regard to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, the Commission concludes that in the circumstances of the present case the applicant does not intend to pursue his petition. It finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require examination of the application to be continued, in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION NO. 23737/94 OFF ITS LIST OF      CASES;        ADOPTS THE PRESENT REPORT;        DECIDES TO SEND THE PRESENT REPORT to the Committee of Ministers      for information, to send it also to the parties' representatives      and to publish it.          M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               G.H. THUNE       Secretary                                   President to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber