CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 14 mars 1996

.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 }         In the case of Finkensieper v. the Netherlands (1),          The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights, constituted in accordance with Article 48 para. 2 (art. 48-2) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B (2), _______________ Notes by the Registrar   1.   The case is numbered 89/1995/595/681.   The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).   The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.   2.   Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply to all cases concerning the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9). _______________          Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 24 January and 21 February 1996, and composed of the following judges:          Mr F. Matscher, Chairman,        Mr L.-E. Pettiti,        Mr S.K. Martens,   and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,          Having regard to the application against the Kingdom of the Netherlands lodged with the Court on 6 October 1995 by a Netherlands national, Mr Hans Otto Theodoor Finkensieper, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art.32-1, art. 47) of the Convention;          Whereas the Netherlands have recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention) (art. 46) and ratified Protocol No. 9 (P9) to the Convention, Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention so as to enable a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") to refer the case to the Court;          Noting that the present case has not been referred to the Court by either the Government of the respondent State or the Commission under Article 48 para. 1 (a) or (d) (art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-d) of the Convention;          Having regard to the Commission's report of 17 May 1995 on the application (no. 19525/92) lodged with the Commission by Mr Finkensieper on 23 December 1991;          Whereas the applicant complained that he had not had a fair trial because his requests to examine certain witnesses before the Court of Appeal had been refused, and alleged a breach of Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (d) (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-d) of the Convention, under which "In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ...", and "Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him";          Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, complained about an incorrect, or at least unduly restrictive, interpretation by the Commission concerning the right of an accused person to have the opportunity at any stage in the criminal proceedings to question a witness, or to have a witness questioned, in order to challenge or cast doubt on the credibility and reliability of that witness;          Having regard to Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention and Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,   1.      Finds that          (a)   the case raises no serious question affecting the             interpretation or application of the Convention, as             the Court has already established case-law on the             relevant requirements of Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (d)             (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-d) of the Convention; and          (b)   the case does not, for any other reason, warrant             consideration by the Court as, in the event of a             finding that there has been a breach of the             Convention, the Committee of Ministers of the Council             of Europe can award the applicant just satisfaction,             having regard to any proposals made by the             Commission;   2.      Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be        considered by the Court.          Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 14 March 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: Franz MATSCHER         Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD         Registrar