Search
document

Document text Analytics

D.R. v. the NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 15942/90 • ECHR ID: 001-45624

Document date: October 13, 1993

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

D.R. v. the NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 15942/90 • ECHR ID: 001-45624

Document date: October 13, 1993

Cited paragraphs only

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application No. 15942/90

D.R.

against

the Netherlands

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 13 October 1993)

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 Convention of the European Convention on Human Rights

and Fundamental Freedoms by D.R. against the Netherlands on

21 August 1989. It was registered on 4 January 1990 under file

No. 15942/90.

2. The applicant was represented before the Commission by

Mr. Th.A. de Roos, a lawyer practising at Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

The respondent Government were represented by their Agent,

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

3. On 14 October 1992 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."

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

reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 13 October 1993 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:

MM. S. TRECHSEL, President

H. DANELIUS

G. JÖRUNDSSON

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

MM. F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

5. The applicant is a Dutch citizen born in 1970. At the time of

the introduction of the application, he was detained at the State

Institution for Youngsters (Rijksinstituut voor Jongeren) in Amsterdam,

the Netherlands.

6. On 6 January 1986 the Amsterdam Regional Court

(Arrondissementsrechtbank) sentenced the applicant to placement in an

institution for special treatment (inrichting voor buitengewone

behandeling) on charges of manslaughter.

7. On 6 June 1989 the Public Prosecutor (Officier van Justitie)

filed a prolongation request. At the hearing before the Regional

Court, the applicant's representative objected that the applicant's

detention was unlawful since the initial order had expired and that

therefore no prolongation could be ordered, as the Public Prosecutor

introduced his prolongation request more than two years after the

initial order. On 15 June 1989 the Regional Court prolonged the

applicant's detention.

8. The applicant complained before the Commission that there had

been a violation of Article 5 paras. 1 and 4 of the Convention in that

his detention was unlawful and in that the lawfulness of his detention

was not speedily reviewed.

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 Chamber Secretary,

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

discuss with them the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.

11. Between 8 December 1992 and 7 September 1993 the parties

exchanged various letters with a view to such a settlement.

12. By letter of 15 June 1993 the Netherlands Government informed the

Commission that, in order to reach a friendly settlement, they were

willing to pay an ex gratia amount of 2.000,- Dutch guilders to the

applicant and the costs incurred by him in the proceedings before the

Commission insofar as they are not covered by legal aid granted at

domestic level and/or by the Council of Europe.

13. By letter of 7 September 1993 the applicant's representative

informed the Commission that the applicant accepted the Government's

proposals and that a specification of the applicant's legal costs would

follow.

14. At its session on 13 October 1993 the Commission (Second Chamber)

noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of

a settlement. It further found, 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 (Second Chamber) adopted this

Report.

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant