Search
document

Document text Analytics

VERBAANT v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 21204/93 • ECHR ID: 001-45738

Document date: July 4, 1995

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

VERBAANT v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 21204/93 • ECHR ID: 001-45738

Document date: July 4, 1995

Cited paragraphs only

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application No. 21204/93

Adrianus Johannes VERBAANT

against

the Netherlands

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 4 July 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 A.J. Verbaant against the

Netherlands on 6 January 1993. It was registered on 21 January 1993

under file No. 21204/93.

The applicant was represented by Ms. T. Spronken, a lawyer

practising in Maastricht, the Netherlands.

The Government of the Netherlands were represented by their

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

2. On 18 May 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 4 July 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

S. TRECHSEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

4. The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1952 and at present

serving a prison sentence.

5. On 16 August 1989, the applicant was arrested and subsequently

detained on remand on suspicion of having committed drugs offences.

6. On 18 January 1990, the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank)

of 's-Hertogenbosch convicted the applicant and sentenced him to three

years' imprisonment, less the time spent in detention on remand.

7. The judgment of the Regional Court was quashed on 16 November

1990 by the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) of 's-Hertogenbosch, which

convicted the applicant and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment,

less the time spent in detention on remand. The applicant subsequently

filed an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad).

8. Pending his appeal in cassation and after having spent 18 months

in detention on remand the applicant was released on 5 February 1991

as a result of a procedural mistake.

9. On 4 October 1991, the Court of Appeal's Registrar (griffier)

sent the case-file to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court started its

examination of the case on 24 March 1992 and rejected the appeal in

cassation on 8 July 1992.

10. Before the Commission the applicant complained under Article 6

para. 1 of the Convention that the criminal charges against him were

not determined within a reasonable time, in particular as a period of

more than sixteen months elapsed between the judgment of the Court of

Appeal and the examination of his appeal in cassation by the Supreme

Court.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. By letter dated 16 June 1995 the applicant proposed terms for a

friendly settlement. By letter of 28 June 1995 the applicant informed

the Commission that he had reached a friendly settlement with the

Government. By letter of 28 June 1995 the Government confirmed that a

friendly settlement of the case had been reached on the following

terms:

"When the applicant has completed the sentence which he is now

serving (ie. on 17 July next) he will be released. Subsequently,

probably on 24 July 1995, he will be summoned to report to the

semi-open detention centre "Groot Bankenbosch" to serve the last

22 months of his sentence relating to the procedure that is the

subject of the application.

Of course for applicant the normal rules and regulations

pertaining to semi-open detention centres will apply. Should

applicant violate the house rules the Netherlands Government

reserves the right to transfer applicant back to a stricter

regime in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations."

14. At its session on 4 July 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)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant