CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 11 septembre 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 }       The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),        Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 12 May 1990 by Mr Watze De Vries against the Netherlands (Application No. 16690/90);        Whereas on 7 December 1993 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;        Whereas in his application, declared admissible by the Commission on 2 December 1992, the applicant complained that he did not have a fair hearing as the judicial authorities' failure to respect the statutory procedural requirements prevented him from appealing in time against a decision by the court of first instance depriving him of the guardianship over his two children, that this decision unjustly interfered with his right to respect for his family life and that the judicial authorities' oversights deprived him of an effective remedy against the decision in question;        Whereas in its report adopted on 13 October 1993, the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention, but not of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, and that it was not necessary to examine whether there had been any violation of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention;        Whereas, at the 512th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, held on 3 and 4 May 1994, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1), of the Convention, that there had been in this case a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention, but not of Article 8 (art. 8);        Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 21 October 1994;        Whereas, at the 522nd meeting of the Deputies, held on 5 and 6 December 1994, the Committee of Ministers decided, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2 (art. 32-2), of the Convention, that the Government of the Netherlands was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 4 500 Dutch guilders in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 2 705,18 Dutch guilders in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 7 205,18 Dutch guilders;        Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of the Netherlands to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 4 May and 6 December 1994, having regard to the Netherlands' obligation under Article 32, paragraph 4 (art. 32-4), of the Convention to abide by them;        Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the Netherlands gave the Committee information about the measures taken in consequence of the Committee's decisions, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution;        Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 21 December 1994, that is within the time-limit set, the Government of the Netherlands paid the applicant the total sum of 7 205,18 Dutch guilders as just satisfaction,        Declares, having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of the Netherlands, that it has exercised its functions under Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention in this case;                  Appendix to Resolution DH (95) 196       Information provided by the Government of the Netherlands          during the examination of the case of De Vries                   by the Committee of Ministers        An Act of 7 July 1994, published in the Staatsblad 1994:570, and in force since 1 April 1994, has amended the Code of Civil Procedure in the fields of the law of persons and of family law by providing, inter alia, certain additional guarantees to those contained in Articles 909, 910, paragraph 4, 913, paragraph 1.b and 938, paragraph 2, of the Code (see paragraphs 30 to 35 of the Commission's report in the De Vries case).        Thus a new second paragraph to Article 429 K provides that in all cases which start with a petition judgment shall be rendered at a public hearing.   According to the new Article 804 the judge shall, at the main hearing, indicate the session at which judgment shall be given.        The new Article 805 provides that the registrar shall transmit the judgment directly after its rendering to, amongst others, the petitioner, the parties concerned, both those who were present at the main hearing and those who were not present on this occasion but who were communicated a copy of the petition.   This article also states that when communicating the judgment, the registrar shall indicate the time-limits and manner of appeal.        Article 806 adds that the time-limit for appealing is two months.   As far as the petitioner, the persons who have been provided with a copy of the judgment or to whom such a copy has been sent, the starting point for the time-limit is the day judgment was rendered.   For the other persons concerned the time-limit starts to run from the date of notification or from the date they otherwise came to know of the judgment.        The Government of the Netherlands considers that these changes, viewed also in the light of the status of the Convention and of the Strasbourg case-law in domestic law, will prevent the repetition of the violation found by the Committee of Ministers in the present case.