Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Application No. 15268/89

Brian Peter Doran

against

the Netherlands

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 8 July 1993)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. INTRODUCTION

(paras. 1-17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A. The application

(paras. 2-7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

B. The proceedings

(paras. 8-12). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

C. The present Report

(paras. 13-17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

(paras. 18-32). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

A. Particular circumstances of the case

(paras. 18-30) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

B. Relevant domestic law

(paras. 31-32) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 33-52). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

A. Complaint declared admissible

(para. 33) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

B. Points at issue

(para. 34) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

C. Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention

(para. 35-46). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

D. Article 5 para. 4 of the Convention

(paras. 47-50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

E. Recapitulation

(paras. 51-52) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

APPENDIX I : HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . .13

APPENDIX II : DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPLICATION .14

I. INTRODUCTION

1 The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the

European Commission of Human Rights and of the procedure before the

Commission.

A. The application

2 The applicant is a United Kingdom citizen, born in 1945, and

resides at Glasgow. Before the Commission he is represented by

Mr. Gerard H. van Asperen, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam.

3 The application is directed against the Netherlands, whose

Government are represented by their Agent, Mr. Karel de Vey Mestdagh

of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

4 On 14 February 1989 the applicant was apprehended and detained

in custody pending extradition proceedings.

5 On 14 March 1989 the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank)

of Amsterdam declared the applicant's detention as from 7 March 1989

unlawful and ordered his release.

6 On behalf of the applicant the release order was presented to the

authorities of the remand centre where the applicant was detained. He

was, however, not released, as the Public Prosecutor had requested his

detention.

7 The applicant complains under Article 5 paras. 1 (f) and 4 of the

Convention that he was unlawfully detained.

B. The proceedings

8 The application was introduced on 26 May 1989 and registered on

20 July 1989.

9 On 10 February 1992 the Commission decided to communicate the

application to the respondent Government and invite them to submit

written observations on the admissibility and merits of the

application.

10 The Government's observations were submitted on 24 April 1992.

The applicant submitted his observations in reply on 3 June 1992.

11 On 30 November 1992 the Commission declared the application

admissible and the parties were requested to submit further information

on the Public Prosecutor's detention order of 14 March 1989. The

parties were also invited, should they so desire, to submit further

observations regarding the merits of the application.

12 By letter of 19 January 1993 the applicant submitted the

information requested by the Commission. The Government submitted the

information requested by the Commission by letter of 3 February 1993.

C. The present report

13 The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in

pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and

votes, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C. L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

G.F. REFFI

M. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

B. CONFORTI

14 The text of the Report was adopted on 8 July 1993 and is now

transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, in

accordance with Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention.

15 The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the

Convention, is

(1) to establish the facts, and

(2) to state an opinion as to whether the facts

found disclose a breach by the State concerned

of its obligations under the Convention.

16 A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the

Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's

decision on the admissibility of the application forms Appendix II.

17 The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the

documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the

Commission.

II. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS

A. Particular circumstances of the case

18 At the request of the United Kingdom authorities, pending a

formal request for extradition, the applicant was provisionally

detained (voorlopige aanhouding) on 13 February 1989.

19 On 14 February 1989 the Public Prosecutor issued a warrant for

the applicant's detention in police custody (inverzekeringstelling)

pursuant to Section 14 of the Extradition Act (Uitleveringswet).

20 On 15 February 1989 the investigating judge (rechter-commissaris)

issued a warrant for the applicant's detention on remand

(inbewaringstelling) on the basis of Section 15 of the Extradition Act

for a maximum period of 20 days.

21 On 2 March 1989 the Ministry for Foreign Affairs received a

formal extradition request from the United Kingdom and forwarded it to

the Ministry of Justice, where it arrived on 6 March 1989. After having

received the formal extradition request the Public Prosecutor, basing

himself on Section 22 of the Extradition Act, on 7 March 1989, ordered

the continuation of the applicant's detention on remand.

22 On the same day the applicant requested the Regional Court

(Arrondissementsrechtbank) of Amsterdam to discontinue his detention,

claiming that a continuation of his detention was unlawful as the

maximum period of 20 days, provided for in Section 16 para. 1(c) of the

Extradition Act, had expired on 6 March 1989 at 24.00 hours.

23 In addition the applicant started summary proceedings (kort

geding) before the President of the Regional Court of The Hague,

claiming his immediate release on the same grounds. The President of

the Regional Court rejected the applicant's claim on 8 March 1989,

considering that the Public Prosecutor's order of 7 March 1989 had been

issued in time.

24 The applicant's request to discontinue his detention was examined

by the Amsterdam Regional Court on 14 March 1989. The Regional Court

considered that the Public Prosecutor's order of 7 March 1989 to

continue the applicant's detention lacked a legal basis, as the warrant

for his detention on remand had expired on 6 March 1989 at 24.00 hours.

The Regional Court declared the applicant's detention unlawful and

ordered his release.

25 On the same day at about 15.30 hours a colleague of the

applicant's lawyer presented the release order to the authorities of

the remand centre where the applicant was detained and demanded his

immediate release. He was then informed that the Public Prosecutor had

instructed not to release the applicant.

26 The Public Prosecutor had contacted the administration of the

remand centre on 14 March 1989 and stated that, if the Regional Court

ordered the applicant's release, he would be apprehended on the basis

of Section 21 of the Extradition Act. Following the Regional Court's

decision of the same date, the Public Prosecutor instructed the

Governor of the remand centre by telephone to keep the applicant in

detention.

27 At about 16.20 hours, the applicant was apprehended in the remand

centre by two officers of the Royal Netherlands Military Constabulary

serving at the Aliens Police (Wachtmeester der Koninklijke

Marechaussee, dienstdoende bij de Recherche Vreemdelingenpolitie) and

was transferred to the Amsterdam Central Police Station, where, on

15 March 1989, he was brought before the Public Prosecutor, who issued

a warrant for his detention in police custody pursuant to Section 21

of the Extradition Act.

28 A further request by the applicant of 17 March 1989 to

discontinue his extradition detention was rejected on 4 April 1989 by

the Regional Court of Amsterdam. It held that the applicant's

detention as from 14 March 1989 was not contrary to Dutch law; the

question whether or not the applicant was unlawfully detained at the

time of the Public Prosecutor's second order for his detention in

police custody did not affect the lawfulness of his subsequent

detention.

29 On 2 May 1989 the Regional Court of Amsterdam ordered the

applicant's further detention (gevangenhouding) and by judicial order

of 16 May 1989 authorised the applicant's extradition in respect of all

but one of the charges and advised the Minister of Justice accordingly.

30 By decision of 5 June 1989 the Deputy Minister of Justice ordered

the applicant's extradition. The applicant was extradited on

28 June 1989.

B. Relevant domestic law

31 The Extradition Act, insofar as relevant, provides as follows:

"Art. 14 - 1. Iedere officier en hulpofficier van

justitie is bevoegd de voorlopige aanhouding van een

vreemdeling overeenkomstig artikel 13 te bevelen.

2. De vreemdeling wordt na zijn voorlopige aanhouding

binnen vierentwintig uren geleid voor de officier of

hulpofficier van justitie die het bevel tot voorlopige

aanhouding heeft gegeven.

3. Na de vreemdeling te hebben gehoord, kan de officier

of hulpofficier van justitie bevelen dat hij gedurende

achtenveertig uren, te rekenen van het tijdstip van de

voorlopige aanhouding, in verzekering gesteld zal blijven.

De hulpofficier geeft van zijn bevel ten spoedigste

schriftelijk kennis aan de officier van justitie.

(...)."

"Section 14 - 1. Every Public Prosecutor and assistant

Public Prosecutor is competent to order the provisional

detention of an alien in accordance with Section 13.

2. The alien will be brought before the Public Prosecutor

or the assistant Public Prosecutor, who has given the order

for the provisional detention, within twenty-four hours

following his apprehension.

3. After having heard the alien, the Public Prosecutor or

the assistant Public Prosecutor can issue a warrant that he

be detained in police custody for forty-eight hours, to be

calculated as from the time of the apprehension. The

assistant Public Prosecutor will, as soon as possible,

inform the Public Prosecutor in writing of his detention

order.

(...)."

"Art. 15 - 1. De rechter-commissaris, belast met de

behandeling van strafzaken, in de rechtbank van het

arrondissement waarin een vreemdeling overeenkomstig

artikel 14 in verzekering is gesteld, kan, op vordering van

de officier van justitie bij die rechtbank de bewaring van

de vreemdeling bevelen.

(...)."

(Translation)

"Section 15 - 1. The investigating judge, in charge of

criminal cases, at the Regional Court, in whose judiciary

district the alien is detained in police custody in

accordance with section 14, can, at the request of the

Public Prosecutor to that Court, issue a warrant for the

alien's detention on remand.

(...)."

"Art. 16 - 1. Een vreemdeling, wiens bewaring

overeenkomstig artikel 15 is bevolen, wordt - behoudens de

mogelijkheid van verdere vrijheidsbeneming uit andere

hoofde - in vrijheid gesteld:

a. zodra zulks door de rechtbank, de rechter-commissaris

of de officier van justitie, ambtshalve of op verzoek van

de vreemdeling of diens raadsman, wordt gelast;

(...)."

"Section 16 - 1. An alien, whose detention on remand has

been ordered in accordance with section 15, will - without

prejudice to the possibility of a further deprivation of

liberty for another reason - be released:

a. when this is ordered by the Regional Court, the

investigating judge or the Public Prosecutor either ex

officio or at the alien's or his lawyer's request;

(...)."

"Art. 21 - 1. De officier van justitie die het verzoek tot

uitlevering heeft ontvangen, kan de aanhouding van de

opgeëiste persoon bevelen.

2. De opgeëiste persoon wiens aanhouding overeenkomstig

het vorige lid is bevolen, wordt binnen vierentwintig uren

na zijn aanhouding voor de officier van justitie of, bij

diens afwezigheid, voor een hulpofficier van justitie

geleid. Na verhoor door een hulpofficier wordt de

aangehouden persoon zo spoedig mogelijk alsnog voor de

officier van justitie geleid.

(...)."

"Section 21 - 1. The Public Prosecutor who has received

the request for extradition can order the apprehension of

the person whose extradition is sought.

2. The person whose extradition is sought and whose

apprehension is ordered in accordance with the previous

paragraph, will be brought before the Public Prosecutor, or

in the latter's absence before an assistant Public

Prosecutor, within twenty-four hours after his

apprehension. After having been heard by an assistant

Public Prosecutor, he will, as soon as possible, still be

brought before the Public Prosecutor.

(...)."

"Art. 22 - 1. Wanneer de opgeëiste persoon, op de dag

waarop de officier van justitie het verzoek tot uitlevering

ontvangt, reeds krachtens artikel 14, onderscheidenlijk

artikel 15 in verzekering of in bewaring is gesteld, kan de

vrijheidsbeneming - met afwijking van artikel 14, derde en

vierde lid, onderscheidenlijk van artikel 16, aanhef en

onder c - op bevel van de officier van justitie worden

voortgezet tot het tijdstip waarop de rechtbank over de

gevangenhouding beslist.

2. Van zijn in het vorige lid bedoelde bevel geeft de

officier van justitie onverwijld kennis aan de rechter-

commissaris die de bewaring krachtens artikel 15 heeft

bevolen."

"Section 22 - 1. When, on the day on which the Public

Prosecutor receives the extradition request, the person

whose extradition is sought is already detained in police

custody or on remand pursuant to section 14 or section 15

respectively, the deprivation of liberty can - deviating

from section 14, third and fourth paragraphs, or section

16, opening sentence and under c, respectively - be

continued on the Public Prosecutor's order until the moment

when the Regional Court will decide on the further

detention on remand.

2. The Public Prosecutor will immediately inform the

investigating judge, who has ordered the detention on

remand pursuant to section 15, of his order issued under

the previous paragraph."

"Art. 52 Krachtens deze wet gegeven bevelen tot

inverzekeringsstelling of bewaring, dan wel tot verlenging

van een termijn van vrijheidsbeneming, worden gedagtekend

en ondertekend. De grond voor uitvaardiging wordt in het

bevel vermeld. Aan de vreemdeling op wie het bevel

betrekking heeft, wordt onverwijld een afschrift daarvan

uitgereikt."

"Section 52 Warrants for detention in police custody or on

remand, or warrants to prolong a period of deprivation of

liberty issued pursuant to this Act, will be dated and

signed. The reason for issuing the warrant will be

mentioned in the warrant. The alien, whom the warrant

concerns, will immediately be provided with a certified

copy."

"Art. 53 - 1. De bevelen tot vrijheidsbeneming, gegeven

krachtens deze wet, zijn dadelijk uitvoerbaar.

2. Bevoegd tot het ten uitvoer leggen van bevelen tot

aanhouding, voorlopige aanhouding of gevangenneming zijn de

in Artikel 141 van het Wetboek van Strafvordering genoemde

ambtenaren.

(...)."

"Section 53 - 1. The orders of deprivation of liberty,

issued pursuant to this Act, are immediately enforceable.

2. The civil servants mentioned in section 141 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure are competent to execute orders

for apprehension, provisional detention or arrest.

(...)."

"Art. 57 Op bevelen tot beëindiging van

vrijheidsbeneming, krachtens deze wet gegeven, en op de

tenuitvoerlegging van zodanige bevelen zijn de artikelen

73, 79, 569 en 570 van het Wetboek van Strafvordering van

overeenkomstige toepassing."

"Section 57 The sections 73, 79, 569 and 570 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure are applicable to orders to end

deprivation of liberty, given pursuant to this Act, and to

the execution of such orders."

32 The Code of Criminal Procedure, insofar as relevant, provides as

follows:

"Art. 73 Behoudens het bepaalde in artikel 72, vierde lid,

zijn bevelen tot voorlopige hechtenis en die tot opheffing

daarvan dadelijk uitvoerbaar."

"Section 73 With the exception provided for in section 72,

fourth paragraph, warrants for detention on remand and

those for the discontinuance thereof are immediately

enforceable."

"Art. 141 Met de opsporing der strafbare feiten zijn

belast:

1. de officieren van justitie;

2. de kantonrechters in zaken, welke niet aan hun

kennisneming zijn onderworpen;

3. de burgemeesters in gemeenten, waar geen commissaris van

gemeentepolitie is;

4. de ambtenaren van het Korps Rijkspolitie en van de

gemeentepolitie, met uitzondering van:

a. de bezoldigde ambtenaren in een lagere dan de door

Onze Minister van Justitie bepaalde rang;

b. de ambtenaren, die zijn aangesteld om uitsluitend

technisch of administratief werkzaam te zijn;

5. de commissarissen van rijkspolitie en de bijzondere

ambtenaren van rijkspolitie;

6. voor de door Onze Ministers van Justitie en van Oorlog

te bepalen gevallen: de officieren en onder-officieren van

de Koninklijke Marechaussee en de door Onze voornoemde

Ministers aangewezen andere militairen van dat wapen;

7. de door Onze Minister van Justitie aangewezen ambtenaren

van het Korps Rijkspolitie en van de gemeentepolitie, die

binnen het raam van de sterkte en de rangindeling zijn

aangesteld om uitsluitend technisch of administratief

werkzaam te zijn."

"Section 141 With the investigation of penal offences are

entrusted:

1. the Public Prosecutors;

2. the District Court judges in cases, which do not fall

within their cognizance;

3. the mayors in municipalities, where there is no

municipal police commissioner;

4. the civil servants of the National Police Corps and the

municipal police, with the exception of:

a. the paid civil servants in a lower rank than the one

determined by Our Minister of Justice;

b. the civil servants, appointed to perform exclusively

technical or administrative tasks;

5. the commissioners of the national police and the special civil

servants of the national police;

6. for the cases to be determined by Our Ministers of

Justice and of War: the commissioned and non-commissioned

officers of the Royal Military Constabulary and the other

military of that arm as designated by Our afore-mentioned

Ministers;

7. the civil servants of the National Police Corps and the

municipal police, designated by Our Minister of Justice,

who have been appointed within the framework of the

strength and the classification of ranks to perform

exclusively technical or administrative tasks."

"Art. 566 - 1. De opneming van een persoon tegen wie een

bevel tot vrijheidsbeneming of veroordelend vonnis of

arrest wordt ten uitvoer gelegd, in de daartoe bestemde

gevangenis, rijkswerkinrichting of andere inrichting,

geschiedt hetzij op vertoon van het bevel tot voorlopige

hechtenis of inverzekeringstelling, of wel van het

veroordelend vonnis of arrest of een uittreksel daarvan,

hetzij op vertoon van de last tot tenuitvoerlegging van het

openbaar ministerie.

(...)."

"Section 566 - 1. The committal of a person, in respect

of whom a detention order or verdict is executed, to a

thereto destined prison, state labour institution or other

institution takes place by, either the presentation of the

detention or custody order or the verdict or an excerpt

thereof, or the presentation of the execution order of the

Public Prosecution Department.

(...)."

"Art. 570 - 1. De invrijheidstelling geschiedt door het

hoofd van het gesticht:

(...)

d. zodra de geldigheid van het bevel tot vrijheidsbeneming

ophoudt;

e. zodra het bevoegd gezag de last tot invrijheidstelling

aan het hoofd van het gesticht verstrekt."

"Section 570 - 1. The release is effected by the head

of the institution:

(...)

d. as soon as the validity of the detention order ceases

to exist;

e. as soon as the competent authority provides the head

of the institution with the release order."

III. OPINION OF THE COMMISSION

A. Complaint declared admissible

33 The Commission has declared admissible the applicant's complaint

that the failure of the remand centre authorities to act upon the

Regional Court's decision of 14 March 1989 ordering his release

constituted an arbitrary deprivation of his liberty.

B. Points at issue

34 The following are the points at issue in the present application:

- whether there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 1

(Art. 5-1) of the Convention;

- whether there has been a violation of Article 5 para. 4

(Art. 5-4) of the Convention.

C. Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention

35 The relevant part of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the

Convention reads as follows:

"1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of

person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the

following cases and in accordance with a procedure

prescribed by law:

(...)

f. the lawful arrest or detention (...) of a person

against whom action is being taken with a view to (...)

extradition."

36 The applicant submits that his detention after the presentation

of the Regional Court's order of 14 March 1989 for his release and the

refusal of the Governor of the remand centre to implement this order

was in breach of of Article 5 para. 1(f) (Art. 5-1-f) of the

Convention.

37 The Government submit that immediately after the Regional Court

had given judgment on 14 March 1989, ordering the applicant's release,

the Public Prosecutor issued an order for the applicant to be detained

pursuant to Section 21 of the Extradition Act and that therefore his

continued detention was lawful. The manner in which the applicant was

deprived of his liberty was in accordance with the statutory procedure.

38 The applicant submits that the new order for his detention had

not yet been received by the remand centre when his lawyer's colleague

presented the Regional Court's release order to the remand centre

authorities, demanding his immediate release. The oral notification

that a detention order was to be issued did not, pending the receipt

of the written order, authorise the detention centre to keep him in

detention.

39 The Government, on the other hand, state that under Dutch law a

warrant for arrest issued by a Public Prosecutor may take a number of

forms and that a warrant issued by telephone has the full force of law.

40 The Commission recalls that, as regards the question whether a

detention is "lawful", including whether it complies with "a procedure

prescribed by law", the Convention refers essentially to national law,

and that it is in the first place for the national courts to interpret

and apply this law (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Bozano judgment of

18 December 1986, Series A no. 111, p. 23 and p. 25, paras. 54 and 58).

41 The Commission also recalls that if continued detention is due

to an abuse of authority, it ceases to be justified under Article 5

para. 1(f) (Art. 5-1-f) of the Convention (cf. No. 9172/80,

Dec. 17.12.81, D.R. 27 p. 222).

42 The Commission notes that the Regional Court of Amsterdam in its

decision of 4 April 1989 did not examine the question whether or not

the applicant was unlawfully detained on 14 March 1989.

43 The Commission observes, that, following the Regional Court's

judgment of 14 March 1989 ordering the applicant's release, the Public

Prosecutor instructed the Governor of the remand centre by telephone

to keep the applicant in detention.

44 The Commission further notes that, according to Section 73 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, warrants for the discontinuance of

detention on remand are immediately enforceable and that Section 53

para. 2 of the Extradition Act in conjunction with Section 141 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure indicate which persons are competent to

apprehend persons whose extradition is sought. Having regard to

Section 141 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Commission notes

that a Governor of a remand centre is not competent to apprehend a

person whose extradition is sought.

45 It follows that the Governor of the remand centre was not

authorised to detain the applicant on the instructions of the Public

Prosecutor. The Commission notes that the applicant's detention, from

the presentation to the remand centre authorities of the Regional

Court's order for his release until his apprehension by the officers

of the Royal Military Constabulary, was only of short duration. But it

cannot consider that this detention, resulting from the Governor's

refusal to implement the release order, was "in accordance with a

procedure prescribed by law". It did not, therefore, satisfy the

conditions of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.

Conclusion

46 The Commission concludes by twenty votes to one that there has

been a violation of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.

D. Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention

47 Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention provides as

follows:

"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or

detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which

the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily

by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not

lawful."

48 The applicant claims that the refusal by the remand centre

authorities to release him in accordance with the Regional Court's

release order of 14 March 1989 also violated his rights under Article 5

para. 4 (Art. 5-4).

49 Having found a violation of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the

Convention, the Commission is of the opinion that the facts complained

of do not raise a separate issue under para. 4 of this provision.

Conclusion

50 The Commission concludes unanimously that no separate issue

arises under Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention.

E. Recapitulation

51 The Commission concludes by twenty votes to one that there has

been a violation of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention

(para. 46 above).

52 The Commission concludes unanimously that no separate issue

arises under Article 5 para. 4 (Art. 5-4) of the Convention (para. 50

above).

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

H.C. Krüger C.A. Nørgaard

APPENDIX I

HISTORY OF PROCEEDINGS

Date Item

___________________________________________________________________

26 May 1989 Introduction of application

20 July 1989 Registration of application

Examination of admissibility

10 February 1992 Commission's decision to invite the Government

to submit their observations on the

admissibility and merits of the application

24 April 1992 Government's observations

3 June 1992 Applicant's observations in reply

30 November 1992 Commission's decision to declare the

applicantion admissible. Commission's decision

to request the parties to clarify some of the

facts and to invite them, should they so desire,

to submit further observations on the merits of

the application

Examination of the merits

19 January 1993 Further submissions by the applicant

3 February 1993 Further submissions by the Government

24 June 1993 Commission's deliberations on the merits and

final vote

8 July 1993 Adoption of the Report

Menu

DORAN v. the NETHERLANDS

DORAN v. the NETHERLANDS

LEXI