Search
document

Document text Analytics

J.D. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 19508/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1855

Document date: July 5, 1994

Inbound citations: 1
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

J.D. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 19508/92 • ECHR ID: 001-1855

Document date: July 5, 1994

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 19508/92

by J.D.

against the Netherlands

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 5 July 1994, the following members being present:

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

J. MUCHA

D. SVÁBY

Mr. K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 28 January 1992

by J.D. against the Netherlands and registered on 11 February 1992

under file No. 19508/92;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having regard to :

- reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the

Commission;

- the observations submitted by the respondent Government on

6 January 1994 and the observations in reply submitted by the

applicant on 4 March 1994;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, born in 1963 as a Yugoslav, is a stateless person

resident in Nieuwegein, the Netherlands. He is represented before the

Commission by Mr.E.Th. Hummels, a lawyer practising in Utrecht.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be

summarised as follows.

On 20 March 1988 the applicant, whilst driving under the

influence of alcohol, collided with another car on the motorway. He

told the driver of the car that he would not wait for the police and

drove away. The driver called the police and followed the applicant.

Eventually, three police officers forced the applicant into the kerb,

arrested him and placed him in detention on remand. His driving

licence was taken away. Some six hours after his arrest he was

released.

On 5 July 1988 the applicant was summoned to appear before the

Magistrate (Politierechter) of the Regional Court (Arrondissements-

rechtbank) of Utrecht on 2 November 1988 on charges of having committed

a hit-and-run accident whilst under the influence of alcohol. On

2 November 1988 the Magistrate convicted the applicant and sentenced

him to two weeks' imprisonment with a probation period of two years,

a fine of 1.000,- Dutch guilders or alternatively 20 days' imprisonment

and imposed a nine months' prohibition of driving with deduction of the

time during which his licence had been taken away.

On 10 November 1988 the applicant lodged an appeal against this

decision with the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof). On

8 November 1989 the Registrar of the Regional Court transmitted the

applicant's case-file to the Court of Appeal, where it was received on

13 November 1989. On 30 October 1990 a hearing took place before the

Court of Appeal. On that occasion, the applicant, inter alia,

complained under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention of the length of

the criminal proceedings against him. In its decision of

8 November 1990, the Court of Appeal dismissed this complaint,

considering that although an undesirably long period had elapsed

between the filing of the appeal and the hearing before the Court of

Appeal, this period was nevertheless not unreasonably long. The Court

of Appeal upheld the conviction and the sentence pronounced by the

Regional Court.

On 20 November 1990 the applicant filed an appeal in cassation

with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad). On 8 February 1991 the Registrar

of the Court of Appeal transmitted the applicant's case-file to the

Supreme Court, where it was received on 12 February 1991. Following a

hearing on 19 November 1991, the Supreme Court rejected the applicant's

appeal in cassation on 7 January 1992.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

of the length of the criminal proceedings against him, in particular

of the delay of almost two years between the filing of his appeal

against the decision of 2 November 1988 and the hearing of

30 October 1990 before the Court of Appeal.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The application was introduced on 28 January 1992 and registered

on 11 February 1992.

In its partial decision of 13 October 1993 the Commission

(Second Chamber) decided to bring the complaint concerning the length

of the criminal proceedings to the notice of the respondent Government,

to invite them to submit written observations on the admissibility and

merits of this complaint and to declare the remainder of the

application inadmissible.

The Government's observations were submitted on 6 January 1994

and the applicant's observations in reply were submitted on

4 March 1994.

THE LAW

The applicant's complaint relates to the length of the criminal

proceedings in question. These proceedings began on 20 March 1988,

when the applicant was arrested, and ended on 7 January 1992, when the

Supreme Court rejected his appeal in cassation.

According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings - a

period of slightly less than three years and ten months - is in breach

of the "reasonable time" requirement laid down in Article 6 para. 1

(Art. 6-1) of the Convention, in particular given the delay of almost

two years between the filing of his appeal against the decision of

2 November 1988 and the hearing of 30 October 1990 before the Court of

Appeal.

The Government refute the allegation. They are of the opinion

that, although the period of time which elapsed between the lodging of

the applicant's appeal and the hearing of this appeal was longer than

desirable, it did not in itself constitute an unreasonable length of

time. Moreover, the applicant was at liberty during the proceedings and

he could have requested the Court of Appeal to expedite his case, which

apparently he has not done.

The Commission considers, in the light of the criteria

established by the case-law of the Convention organs on the question

of "reasonable time" (the complexity of the case, the applicant's

conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to

all the information in its possession, that an examination of the

merits of this complaint is required.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE,

without prejudging the merits of the case.

Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber

(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant