Lexploria

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application No. 17132/90

P.

against

the NETHERLANDS

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(adopted on 8 December 1992)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

PART II: SOLUTION REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

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 P. against the Netherlands on

29 August 1990. It was registered on 7 September 1990 under file

No. 17132/90.

2. The applicant was represented before the Commission by

Mrs. G.E.M. Later, a lawyer practising in The Hague, the

Netherlands. The respondent Government were represented by their

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

3. On 8 January 1992 the European Commission of Human Rights

declared the application admissible with the exception of a

complaint under Article 14 of the Convention. 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. On 30 March 1992 the Commission referred the application to

the Second Chamber.

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

reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 8 December 1992 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 of the Second Chamber

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

MM. F. MARTINEZ

L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

PART I

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

6. The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1967 and resident

at 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands.

7. After the applicant had been committed to a mental hospital

on 13 February 1990 by a provisional order of the Burgomaster of

's-Hertogenbosch, she signed a request to the District Court judge

(Kantonrechter) in 's-Hertogenbosch for placement in a mental

hospital by reason of mental illness.

8. On 20 February 1990, the District Court judge visited her at

the hospital where she was interned on the basis of the

Burgomaster's order. She was then heard by the judge, and she

objected to being compulsorily interned. She was not assisted by a

lawyer.

9. On the same day, the District Court judge issued an order for

her internment. In his decision, he referred to a medical

certificate issued under Section 16 of the Mentally Ill Persons Act

(Krankzinnigenwet) by Dr. K. The judge stated in his decision that

it appeared from the minutes of the hearing of the applicant and

the medical certificate that the applicant was in such a state of

mental illness that there existed a danger for herself, for other

persons or for the general safety of persons or property and that

on account of this danger internment in a mental hospital was

necessary.

10. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), but

her appeal was rejected, the main reason being that a District

Court judge's decision on a matter of this kind was not subject to

appeal. However, the Supreme Court also made some comments on the

question whether the judge had been justified in considering that

Dr. K. had not been treating the applicant at that time. As, in his

certificate, Dr. K. had indicated another doctor as being the

doctor treating the applicant, it was understandable, in the

Supreme Court's view, that the District Court judge had concluded

that the applicant was not in treatment by Dr. K.

11. The applicant complained before the Commission that there had

been violations of Articles 5, 6, and 13 of the Convention in that,

inter alia, she had not been assisted by a lawyer at the hearing

before the District Court judge on 20 February 1990, that she had

not been given access to her case-file and that persons who are

deprived of their liberty by a District Court judge have no

effective remedy.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

12. Following the decision on the admissibility of the

application, the Commission 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.

13. In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary, acting

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

with them the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.

14. Between 20 February 1992 and 16 October 1992 the parties

exchanged various letters relating to the effort to reach a

friendly settlement of the case.

15. By letter of 16 October 1992 the applicant's lawyer informed

the Commission that the applicant had accepted the Government's

offer to pay a total amount of 7.500 Dutch guilders to the

applicant, which amount includes the applicant's legal costs, in

order to attain a friendly settlement of the application.

16. By letter of 19 October 1992 the Netherlands Government

informed the Commission that they had secured a friendly settlement

of the case with the applicant.

17. At its session of 8 December 1992 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.

18. For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)

Menu

P. v. the NETHERLANDS

P. v. the NETHERLANDS