CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;MERITS;ENG — 14 février 2000

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .s9BD1BAAD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:22pt; text-align:center } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sFCACDBC6 { margin-top:22pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40283553 { margin-top:10pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-align:center } .sED058FF3 { margin-top:8pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:150% } .sD622F424 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:32pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE3A0EFA1 { margin-top:32pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EAAAA4F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sA4BC420C { width:15.07pt; display:inline-block } .sFC64E1AD { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:35.45pt; text-align:justify } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD6493B2B { width:0.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCCB68666 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .s47E2B0C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Final resolution DH (2000) 7 HUMAN RIGHTS APPLICATION No. 26788/95 VERVERGAERT AGAINST THE NETHERLANDS (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 14 February 2000 at the 695th 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 Interim Resolution DH (99) 109, adopted on   18 January 1999 in the case of Ververgaert against the Netherlands, in which the Committee of Ministers decided that there had been a violation of Article   6, paragraph   1 and 3. c , of the Convention on account of the unfairness of certain in absentia proceedings in the course of which the applicant was judged and convicted by the Court of Appeal to a twelve-months prison sentence without his counsel being able to conduct his defence, and decided to make public the report of the European Commission of Human Rights;   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 19 October 1998;   Whereas at the 654th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the Commission’s proposals, held by a decision adopted on 18 January 1999, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph   2, of the Convention, that the Government of the respondent State was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, 3 000 Dutch guilders in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 5 764,69 Dutch guilders in respect of costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 8   764,69, and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum, calculated on the basis of each full elapsed month of delay 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 applicant;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of the respondent State to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 18 January 1999, having regard to the Netherlands’ obligation 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 respondent State recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as that found in this case, notably - in view of the direct effect given by the Dutch courts to judgments of the European Court of Human Rights - through a change in jurisprudence giving an accused who is absent from a public hearing to which he or she has been summoned, the right to have his or her defence presented by counsel, even if the absence is not considered justified (see Resolutions DH   (95)   240 and DH (95) 241 in the cases of Lala and Pelladoah against the Netherlands); in addition, the respondent State indicated that the Commission’s report as well as the Committee of Ministers’ decisions had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;   Whereas the Committee of Ministers took note of the fact that on 26 May 1999, i.e. after the time-limit set, the Government of the respondent State had paid the sum of 5 764,69 Dutch guilders, awarded in respect of costs and expenses, to the applicant's lawyer and that the latter had waived his right to default interest in view of the minimal sum involved; Whereas the Committee of Ministers also took note of the fact that the Government of the respondent State set off the sum of 3 000 Dutch guilders, awarded in respect of non-pecuniary damage, against debts owed by the applicant to the Ministry of Justice, debts which are unrelated to the violation found in the present case,   Declares, after 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.