Search
document

Document text Analytics

S.W. v. the NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 14422/88 • ECHR ID: 001-45547

Document date: May 22, 1992

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

S.W. v. the NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 14422/88 • ECHR ID: 001-45547

Document date: May 22, 1992

Cited paragraphs only

EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

SECOND CHAMBER

Application No. 14422/88

S. W.

against

the NETHERLANDS

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

adopted on 22 May 1992

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 S. W. against the Netherlands on

20 September 1988. It was registered on 1 December 1988 under file

No. 14422/88.

2. The applicant was represented before the Commission by

Mr. G.P. Hamer, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The

respondent Government were represented by their Agent,

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

3. On 9 April 1991 the Commission referred the application to the

Second Chamber of the Commission.

4. On 13 January 1992 the European Commission of Human Rights

(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."

5. The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly

settlement of the case and on 22 May 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

A. WEITZEL

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, a Dutch citizen, lives in Amsterdam, the

Netherlands. On 16 March 1988 the applicant's brother requested the

District Court judge of Amsterdam to issue a judicial authorisation to

place the applicant in a mental hospital.

On 18 March 1988 the District Court judge held a hearing at the

District Court, where a municipal psychiatrist, the applicant's brother

and the applicant's lawyer were present. Following this hearing, the

District Court judge heard the applicant.

On 23 March 1988 the District Court judge heard the applicant's

lawyer. On 24 March 1988 the District Court judge contacted the

applicant's treating psychiatrist by telephone on the basis of a letter

of 10 March 1988 from the psychiatrist and subsequently issued the

judicial authorisation for the applicant's placement in a mental

hospital. A copy of the judicial authorisation was sent to the

applicant's lawyer.

7. On 28 March 1988 the applicant was conducted by the police to a

mental hospital, where he learnt of the judicial authorisation. The

applicant subsequently contacted a lawyer and requested the Hospital

Board on 14 June 1988 to discharge him.

8. The Board transmitted the request to the public prosecutor, who

on 14 July 1988 submitted it to the Regional Court. On 9 August 1988

the judicial authorisation was lifted by the Hospital Board following

a recommendation for discharge by the responsible medical officer. The

request to the Regional Court was consequently withdrawn.

9. The applicant complained before the Commission that his detention

and the proceedings concerned violated Article 5 paras. 1, 2 and 4 and

Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

PART II

SOLUTION REACHED

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. By letter of 23 April 1992 the respondent Government informed the

Commission that a friendly settlement had been reached in the following

terms:

"The Government will pay the applicant Dfl 7.962,- as just

satisfaction, including Dfl 2.962,- for the expenses and

fees of his lawyer."

13. By letter of 14 May 1992 to the Commission the applicant's lawyer

confirmed that a friendly settlement of the case had been reached on

the above terms.

14. At its session of 22 May 1992 the Commission 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.

For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant