CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 11 juillet 1997

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   INTERIM RESOLUTION DH (97) 358 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATION No.   25514/94 MENCKEBERG AGAINST THE NETHERLANDS   (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11 July 1997 at the 597th 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 16 October 1996 by the European Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 6 October 1994 by Mr   Guno Vincentius Menckeberg against the Netherlands (Application No. 25514/94);   Whereas on 22 November 1996 the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the case has not been referred to the European Court of Human Rights, either by the Commission or by a State entitled to do so under Article 48 of the Convention, within the time-limit of three months from the transmission of the report to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers; considering, however, that within this time-limit, the applicant seized the Court in accordance with Protocol No. 9 but that the screening panel of the Court decided on 11   April 1997 that this case would not be considered by the Court; whereas the Committee of Ministers is therefore now called upon to take a decision in accordance with Article 32 of the Convention and with Article 48 of the Convention as amended by Article 5 of Protocol No.   9 for those States having ratified the latter;   Whereas in his application, declared admissible by the Commission on 17   January 1996, the applicant complained of certain criminal proceedings in which the summons for the hearing before the Court of Appeal had not reached him and in which his lawyer was not allowed to conduct the defence or to question witnesses;   Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been a violation of Article   6, paragraphs 1 and 3. c , of the Convention;   Whereas at the 597th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the opinion expressed by the Commission, held, by a decision adopted on 11 July 1997, 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, paragraphs 1 and 3. c , of the Convention,   Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this case;   Decides to pursue the examination of the present case, in accordance with Article   32 of the Convention with a view to adopting the final resolution.