CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 février 1992

.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 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),        Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the Feldbrugge case delivered on 29 May 1986 and 27 July 1987 and transmitted the same days to the Committee of Ministers;        Recalling that the case originated in an application against the Netherlands lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 16 February 1979 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention by Mrs Geziena Hendrika Maria Feldbrugge, a Dutch national, who complained that she had not had a fair hearing in proceedings she brought before an appeals board in order to continue receiving a health insurance allowance;        Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 12 October 1984;        Whereas in its judgment of 29 May 1986 the Court:        - held by ten votes to seven that Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention, was applicable to the circumstances of the present case;        - held by ten votes to seven that Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), had been violated;        - held unanimously that the question of the application of Article 50 (art. 50) was not ready for decision;        Whereas in its judgment of 27 July 1987 the Court unanimously:        - held unanimously that the Netherlands were to pay to the applicant 10 000 Dutch guilders for non-pecuniary damage and to reimburse her for consultation expenses to the amount of 1 502 guilders;        - rejected unanimously the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction;        Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention;        Having invited the Government of the Netherlands to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgments of 29 May 1986 and 27 July 1987, having regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) 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 judgments, which information appears in the Appendix to this Resolution;        Having satisfied itself that the Government of the Netherlands has paid the applicant the sums provided for in the judgment of 27 July 1987,        Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied by the Government of the Netherlands, that it has exercised its functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this case.                  Appendix to Resolution DH (92) 8      Information provided by the Government of the Netherlands          during the examination of the Feldbrugge case                  by the Committee of Ministers        The Appeals Act 1955 (Beroepswet) was amended by an Act dated 11 September 1991 which entered into force on 1 October 1991.        For disputes concerning fitness or unfitness for work, Section 142, paragraph 1, of the 1955 Act, mentioned in paragraph 19 of the Court's judgment, provided that an appeal against the decision of the President of the Appeals Board (Raad van Beroep) lay with the full Appeals board, but solely on four grounds specifically listed.   If the appeal (verzet) brought by one of the parties was not based on one or the other of these grounds, it was declared inadmissible.        Section 1, paragraph y, of the 1991 Act amending Section 142 of the 1955 Act no longer mentions these four conditions of admissibility of the appeal.   Under Section 142, paragraph 2, as amended, the parties will have henceforth, at their request, the opportunity of consulting the case file before expiry of the 30 days' time-limit set for lodging the appeal.   Furthermore, Section 142, paragraph 5, as amended, provides that the Appeals Board may declare the appeal inadmissible but that it must give the applicant the opportunity to be heard at a public hearing.        The sums awarded by the Court to the applicant were paid on 14 August 1987.