CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 15 mai 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s4AB489F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:20pt } .sD8D566C3 { height:0pt; text-align:left; display:block; position:absolute; z-index:-1 } .s4ECD4776 { margin-top:104.85pt; margin-left:180.8pt; position:absolute } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD227234A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } RESOLUTION DH (97) 218 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATION No. 20028/92 DUPONT AND VAN IDSINGA AGAINST THE NETHERLANDS   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15   May   1997 at the 590th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)   The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article   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 on 21 February 1995 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 30 March 1992 by Mrs Paulina A.M.M. Dupont and Mr Anton C. van Idsinga against the Netherlands (Application No.   20028/92);   Whereas on 29 March 1995 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, of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of Article   48 of the Convention;   Whereas in their application, declared admissible by the Commission on 18   October 1993, the applicants complained of the excessive length of certain proceedings concerning civil rights and obligations before social security courts;   Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   Whereas, at the 542nd meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 7 September 1995, having voted in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1, of the Convention, that there had been in this case a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1, of the Convention;   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 applicants, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 8 March 1996;   Whereas, at the 564th meeting of the Deputies, the Committee of Ministers held, by a decision adopted on 15 May 1996, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the Government of the Netherlands was to pay, within three months, as just satisfaction, the first applicant the total sum of 1 000 Dutch guilders and the second applicant the total sum of 2 000 Dutch guilders and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum at the statutory rate applicable on the date of this decision, it being understood that the interest would accrue from the expiry of the time-limit until full payment was placed at the disposal of the applicants;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of the Netherlands to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 7 September 1995 and 15   May 1996, having regard to the obligation of the Netherlands under Article   32, paragraph   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 accordingly recalled that measures had been taken to prevent the repetition of the violation found in the present case, notably through the law of 1 January 1994 concerning new uniform rules of administrative procedures (see Resolution DH (96) 21 in the case of Schouten and Meldrum against the Netherlands) which applies to situations comparable to the one at issue in the present case, and that the Commission’s report as well as the Committee of Minister’s decisions had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on 2 July 1996 the Government of the Netherlands paid the applicants the total sum of 3 000 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 of the Convention in this case;   Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case.