CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 19 octobre 1995

.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 judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Pelladoah case delivered on 22 September 1994 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;        Recalling that the case originated in an application (No. 16737/90) against the Netherlands, lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 17 April 1990, under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention, by Mr Satyanund Pelladoah, a Mauritian national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint that he had not had a fair trial in that his counsel had not been heard by the Court of Appeal;        Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the Commission on 12 July 1993 and by the Government of the Netherlands on 30 August 1993;        Whereas in its judgment of 22 September 1994 the Court unanimously:        - held that there had been a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention taken together with Article 6, paragraph 3.c (art. 6-3-c);        - held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction;        - dismissed 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 judgment of 22 September 1994, having regard to the Netherlands' obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;        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 judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution,        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 (95) 241       Information provided by the Government of the Netherlands           during the examination of the Pelladoah case                   by the Committee of Ministers        The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights has been given wide publicity in the Netherlands.   The Convention is accepted by the courts to be directly applicable (to have direct effect) in the domestic law.   In two recent decisions concerned with questions similar to those raised in the Pelladoah case (Strafkammer decision of 6 December 1994 in the case against Roby Dennis Ong-A-Fat (No. 98.306); Strafkammer decision of 13 December 1994 in the case against Abdorsa El Mernikh (No. 98.354)), the Supreme Court (the Hoge Raad) has furthermore found it justified, on the basis of the judgments of the European Court in the Lala and Pelladoah cases, to change its earlier case-law so as to conform with the jurisprudence of the European Court.   This new case-law has been confirmed in several other cases (see Hoge Raad Strafkammer decisions of 10 January 1995 in the cases against Mardoyi Andrada Lara and against Fokke Johannes Stoker, Nos. 98.547 and 98.642, respectively).   According to the new case-law an accused who is absent from the public hearing to which he has been summoned, has the right to have the defence presented by counsel, even if the absence is not considered justified.        In view of these developments the Government of the Netherlands considers that there is no risk of any repetition of the violation found by the European Court in the present case and that it has, accordingly, fulfilled the Netherlands' obligations under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention.