Search
document

Document text Analytics

NICOL v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 15553/89 • ECHR ID: 001-45696

Document date: January 17, 1995

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

NICOL v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 15553/89 • ECHR ID: 001-45696

Document date: January 17, 1995

Cited paragraphs only

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application No. 15553/89

Jean Helena Jacobus NICOL

against

the Netherlands

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 17 January 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 J.H.J. Nicol against the Netherlands

on 23 May 1989. The application was registered on 28 September 1989

under file No. 15553/89.

The Government of the Netherlands were represented by their

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

2. On 11 May 1994 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 17 January 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 1944 and residing at

Maastricht, the Netherlands.

5. In two separate judgments the Regional Court (Arrondissements-

rechtbank) of Maastricht convicted the applicant on 22 September 1987,

in absentia and on appeal, of having driven a technically unfit and

uninsured car on the public road. The applicant filed appeals in

cassation against these judgments with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad).

6. The applicant submitted that, in spite of several requests, he

was not provided with copies of the judgments of 22 September 1987 of

the Regional Court.

7. On 3 January 1989 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's

appeals in cassation.

8. Before the Commission the applicant complained under Article 6

paras. 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention that he did not receive a fair

trial, as he was not provided with copies of the judgments of the

Regional Court and therefore could not properly prepare his defence in

the cassation proceedings.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

9. 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.

10. In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary to the

Chamber, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties

to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.

11. By letter dated 3 November 1994 the Government notified the

Commission that they were prepared to make an ex gratia payment of

Dfl 500,- to the applicant. The Government also informed the Commission

that the applicant's name does not appear in either police records or

the Criminal Records Register in respect of the offences in question.

12. On 6 December 1994 the applicant informed the Commission that he

accepted the Government's offer.

13. At its session on 17 January 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.

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

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (H. DANELIUS)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant