Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application No. 19964/92

Martinus Beerden

against

the Netherlands

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 24 October 1995)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

PART I : STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

PART II : SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

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 Mr. Martinus Beerden against the

Netherlands on 11 February 1992. It was registered on 11 May 1992

under file No. 19964/92.

The applicant was represented by Mr. H.F.T. Pennarts, a lecturer

at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam.

The Government of the Netherlands were represented by their

Agent, Mr. K. de Vey Mestdagh, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

2. On 22 February 1995 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."

3. The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had

reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 24 October 1995 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.

The following members were present when the Report was adopted:

Mr. H. DANELIUS, President

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

4. The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1946 and resident in

Rotterdam.

5. On 7 May 1991 the Bureau for Legal Aid (Bureau voor Rechtshulp)

of Rotterdam assigned a lawyer to the applicant in proceedings

concerning the applicant's dismissal. Even though the assigned lawyer

felt that the applicant did not qualify for legal aid, she agreed to

provide legal assistance under the legal aid scheme unless it would

appear that the assignment had been issued on the basis of incorrect

or incomplete facts concerning the applicant's financial means.

6. Following the conclusion of the dismissal proceedings before the

District Court judge (Kantonrechter) of Rotterdam on 15 July 1991, the

lawyer requested the Legal Aid Bureau to withdraw the assignment on

6 August 1991. By letter of 13 August 1991, the Bureau for Legal Aid

rejected the request, holding that the applicant's income had been

correctly assessed according to established policy in cases of

(imminent) dismissal and that the Legal Aid Act (Wet Rechtsbijstand aan

On- en Minvermogenden) did not provide for a possibility to withdraw

an assignment in cases where proceedings had been decided in favour of

the legal aid beneficiary.

7. On 19 August 1991, the lawyer requested intervention

(tussenkomst) by the President of the Regional Court

(Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Rotterdam, requesting him to withdraw the

assignment. The lawyer sent a copy of this request to the applicant and

the Bureau for Legal Aid.

8. On 29 August 1991, the President decided to withdraw the

assignment of a legal aid lawyer to the applicant, holding that,

notwithstanding the Bureau for Legal Aid's established policy, it had

appeared from the documents submitted that the applicant's monthly

income amply exceeded the income limits of the Legal Aid Act. The

applicant was not heard by the President or given the opportunity to

react to the lawyer's request. As a consequence, the applicant had to

pay 5,092 Dutch guilders to his lawyer. According to the law no appeal

lay against the President's decision.

9. Before the Commission the applicant complained under Article 6

para. 1 of the Convention that he did not have a fair and public

hearing in the proceedings which led to the withdrawal of the

assignment of a legal aid lawyer. The applicant further complained that

the absence of a legal remedy against this decision violated Article

13 of the Convention.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. Following an exchange of correspondence, the Commission

considered the question of a settlement on 4 July 1995, and made

specific settlement proposals. By letters of 7 August and

4 October 1995 the Government informed the Commission that they were

willing to accept the terms of the proposal. By letter received on

13 September 1995 the applicant informed the Commission that he also

agreed to a settlement of the case on the proposed terms.

13. The settlement provides as follows:

1) the payment by the Netherlands Government to the applicant

of 5,092 Dutch guilders, minus 60 Dutch guilders which the

applicant would have been liable to pay as his own

contribution in case the assignment of the legal aid lawyer

had not been withdrawn, plus 1,000 Dutch guilders as

compensation for the loss of interest, thus 6,032 Dutch

guilders; and

2) the payment of 1,500 Dutch guilders by the Netherlands

Government to the applicant for costs and expenses incurred

in the proceedings before the Commission.

14. At its session on 24 October 1995, 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.

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

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(M.-T. SCHOEPFER) (H. DANELIUS)

Menu

BEERDE v. THE NETHERLANDS

BEERDE v. THE NETHERLANDS