EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application No. 29841/96

Jacob Willem VAN VLIET

against

the Netherlands

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 27 May 1998)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 1

PART I  : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS 3

PART II : SOLUTION REACHED 4

INTRODUCTION

1. This Report relates to the application introduced under Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Jacob Willem van Vliet against the Netherlands on 24 November 1995.  It was registered on 19 January 1996 under file No. 29841/96.

2. The applicant was initially represented by Mr G. Spong , a lawyer practising in The Hague, who was succeeded by Mr M. Wladimiroff , a lawyer also practising in The Hague.

3. The Government of the Netherlands were represented by their Agent, Mr R. Böcker , of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

4. On 3 December 1997 the Commission (Second Chamber) declared the application admissible .  It then proceeded to carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention which provides as follows:

"In the event of the Commission accepting a petition referred to it:

a. it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts, undertake together with the representatives of the parties an examination of the petition and, if need be, an investigation, for the effective conduct of which the States concerned shall furnish all necessary facilities, after an exchange of views with the Commission;

b. it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in this Convention."

5. The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 27 May 1998 it adopted this Report, which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention, is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution reached.

6. The following members were present when the Report was adopted:

MM J.-C. GEUS, President

M.A. NOWICKI

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

Mrs G.H. THUNE

MM F. MARTINEZ

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. ŠVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIŪNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

A. ARABADJIEV

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

7. The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1957, and resident at Sitges , Spain.

8. On 14 March 1989 the applicant's premises were searched. On 12 December 1989 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on remand until 23 December 1989.

9. On 27 March 1992 the Regional Court ( Arrondissementsrechtbank ) of Rotterdam convicted the applicant of having participated in an organisation which aimed to commit criminal acts and sentenced him to a partially suspended term of two years' imprisonment with deduction of the time spent in pre-trial detention.

10. On 27 March 1992 both the applicant and the prosecution filed an appeal with the Court of Appeal ( Gerechtshof ) of The Hague. On 15 October 1993 the Court of Appeal quashed the Regional Court's judgment and convicted the applicant of having participated in an organisation which aimed to commit criminal acts, sentenced him to a partially suspended term of 12 months' imprisonment with deduction of the time spent in pre-trial detention, and imposed a fine of 25,000 Dutch guilders or, in case of non-payment, 120 days' imprisonment.

11. On 20 October 1993 the applicant filed an appeal in cassation against this decision with the Supreme Court ( Hoge Raad ). On 30 September 1994 the case-file was received by the Supreme Court's Registry.

12. On 23 January 1995 the applicant's representative lodged a cassation memorial. He complained inter alia of the length of the proceedings but only in respect of the time elapsed between the filing of the appeal in cassation and the examination by the Supreme Court. On 31 January 1995 the first hearing before the Supreme Court took place. On 30 May 1995 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal in cassation .

13. Before the Commission the applicant complained under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention that the criminal charges against him had not been determined within a reasonable time since the Registry of the Court of Appeal of The Hague had not forwarded the case-file to the Registry of the Supreme Court until more than eleven months after he had lodged an appeal in cassation .

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

14. Following the decision on the admissibility of the application, the Commission (Second Chamber) placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.

15. In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.

16. The Government notified the Commission, by letter dated 6 February 1998, that they were prepared to reach a friendly settlement and submitted proposals to this end. According to these proposals, the Government would pay the applicant a reasonable amount for reimbursement of the costs incurred by him in the proceedings before the Commission, as well as an ex gratia sum of 2,000 Dutch guilders by reason of the fact that, if a settlement were to be reached, the applicant would lack a final decision on the merits of his application.

17. By letter of 29 April 1998 the applicant's representative informed the Commission that the applicant accepted the Government's offer.

18. On 12 May 1998 the applicant submitted a detailed breakdown of the legal costs incurred by him in the proceedings before the Commission, which amounted to 3,269.44 Dutch guilders. On 19 May 1998 the Government informed the Commission that they were prepared to reimburse the applicant's costs to that amount.

19. At its session on 27 May 1998, the Commission noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement. It further considered, having regard to Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.

20. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.

        M.-T. SCHOEPFER                                               J.-C. GEUS

           Secretary                                                                President

      to the Second Chamber                                     of the Second Chamber