CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 décembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Communicated on 2 December 2014   THIRD SECTION Application no. 2156/10 M against the Netherlands lodged on 7 January 2010 The facts and complaints in this case have been summarised in the Court’s decision, which is available in HUDOC. QUESTIONS 1.     Was the applicant afforded adequate facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention? In particular, was the non-disclosure to the defence, or disclosure in redacted form as the case might be, of documents complete versions of which were in the possession of the AIVD compatible with that provision?   2.     Was the applicant able to defend himself through legal assistance, as required by Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? In particular, were restrictions placed on the applicant’s right to give information and instructions to his counsel compatible with that provision?   3.     (a)     Was the applicant in a position to state whatever facts he considered it necessary to state in his defence? (b)     If not, has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 and/or Article   6 §   3   (c)?   4.     (a)     Was the applicant able to obtain the attendance of witnesses on his behalf, as required by Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention? (b)     In the affirmative, were all witnesses heard under conditions compatible with Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention? In particular, were the constraints on the questioning of witnesses “strictly necessary” (see Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands , 23 April 1997, § 58, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ III)?