Search
document

Document text Analytics

J.H.S. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 10808/84 • ECHR ID: 001-45363

Document date: March 17, 1989

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

J.H.S. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 10808/84 • ECHR ID: 001-45363

Document date: March 17, 1989

Cited paragraphs only

Application No. 10808/84

J.H. S.

against

the NETHERLANDS

DRAFT

REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

(Adopted on 17 March 1989)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. THE PARTIES

(paras. 1 - 3) 1

II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS

(paras. 4 - 5) 1

III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

(paras. 6 - 12) 1-2

IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

(paras. 13 - 15) 3

APPENDIX: Decision on Admissibility 4-11

I. THE PARTIES&S

1. This Report, which is drawn up by the Commission in accordance

with Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure, concerns the application

brought by J.H. S. against the Netherlands and registered under No.

10808/84.

2. The applicant was represented before the Commission by Mr. J.

Slangen, a lawyer practising at Venlo / Netherlands.

3. The Netherlands Government were represented before the

Commission by their Agent, Mrs. D.S. van Heukelom, Legal Adviser at

the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, The Hague.

II. SUMMARY OF THE FACTS&S

4. The facts of the case are set out in the Commission's Decision

as to the admissibility of the application of 7 May 1988, attached

hereto as an Appendix (pp. 4 - 20).

5. The pertinent facts and complaints may be summarised as

follows:

On 11 February 1980 the applicant was arrested and questioned

by the police in Venlo on suspicion of having committed embezzlement.

The applicant was released after several days. On 15 February 1980

the Roermond Public Prosecutor applied to open a preliminary judicial

investigation against the applicant. On 21 August 1980 the applicant

was summoned to stand trial. The applicant objected. His objections

were rejected in the same year both by the trial court and the Court

of Appeal. The applicant then brought the matter before the Supreme

Court (Hoge Raad) which on 15 June 1982 referred the case back to the

Court of Appeal. This Court maintained its earlier decision and the

applicant again appealed to the Supreme Court which rejected this

appeal on 21 June 1983. On 24 November 1983 the applicant was

convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to one year imprisonment. The

applicant's appeals were to no avail. On 31 March 1987 the Supreme

Court dismissed his appeal on points of law.

Before the Commission the applicant complained under Article 6

para. 1 of the Convention of the length of the criminal proceedings

against him.

III. THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION&S

6. The present application was introduced on 12 August 1983 and

registered on 8 February 1984. On 11 March 1985 the Commission

decided to give notice of the application to the respondent Government

in accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 (b) of the Rules of Procedure, and

to request the parties' written observations.

7. On 25 May 1985 the respondent Government submitted their

observations. The applicants' reply was submitted on 21 June 1985.

8. On 7 May 1988 the Commission declared the application

admissible. On 28 June 1988 the parties were invited, pursuant to

Rule 45 para. 2 of the Rules of Procedure, to submit supplementary

observations.

9. The applicant submitted supplementary observations on 3 August

1988.

10. On 17 August 1988 the respondent Government informed the

Commission that the applicant had applied for a pardon remitting the

sentence imposed on him. On 3 January 1989 the respondent Government

stated that it was expected that Her Majesty the Queen would grant the

applicant's request shortly. The applicant thereupon stated in a

letter of 23 January 1989 that he did not intend to pursue his

application. By letter of 20 February 1989 the respondent Government

submitted a copy of the pardon which had been granted to the applicant

on 11 January 1989 "discharging the term of one year imprisonment,

less the period spent on remand in custody, to which

... was sentenced by the Court of Appeal at 's-Hertogenbosch by a

judgment of 13 May 1985 ...".

11. By letter of 6 February 1989 the respondent Government were

consulted, in accordance with Rule 49 para. 2 of the Commission's

Rules of Procedure, as to striking the present application off the

Commission's list of cases.

12. On 17 March 1989, the Commission decided to strike the present

application off its list, in accordance with Rules 44 para. 1 (a) of

its Rules of Procedure. It adopted the present Report and decided to

transmit it to the Committee of Ministers and the parties for

information and to publish it. The following members were present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

J. CAMPINOS

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

Mr. L. LOUCAIDES

IV. THE DECISION OF THE COMMISSION&S

13. The Commission notes the applicant's statement that he does

not intend to pursue his Application No. 10808/84.

14. The Commission finds, therefore, that the applicant no longer

wishes his case to be examined, and further considers that there are

no reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the

Convention which warrant further examination of the application.

15. For these reasons, the Commission, having regard to Rules 44

para. 1 (a), 49 and 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

- decides to strike Application No. 10808/84 off its list;

- adopts the present Report;

- decides to send the present Report to the Committee of

Ministers for information, to send it also to the parties,

and to publish it.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant