Search
document

Document text Analytics

A. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 15564/89 • ECHR ID: 001-1210

Document date: December 12, 1991

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

A. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 15564/89 • ECHR ID: 001-1210

Document date: December 12, 1991

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 15564/89

by R.A.

against the Netherlands

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 12

December 1991, the following members being present:

MM.C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.-C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs.G. H. THUNE

SirBasil HALL

Mr.F. MARTINEZ RUIZ

Mrs.J. LIDDY

MM.L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

A.V. ALMEIDA RIBEIRO

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

Mr. H.C. KRÃœGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 26 September 1989

by R.A. against the Netherlands and registered on 3 October 1989 under

file No. 15564/89;

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

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1964 and at present

living in the United Kingdom. Before the Commission he is represented

by Ms. C.A. Lucardie, a lawyer practising in The Hague, the

Netherlands.

The facts as submitted by the applicant may be summarised as

follows.

On 3 December 1986, the applicant was arrested in Oslo, Norway,

on charges of drug trafficking. On 16 October 1987, his trial was set

for 3 December 1987. He was detained on remand but absconded on 16

November 1987.

It seems that the applicant fled to the United Kingdom where a

Norwegian extradition request was apparently refused. In May 1989 he

went to the Netherlands where he was immediately taken into custody

with a view to his extradition to Norway.

On 14 July 1989 the Rotterdam Regional Court

(Arrondissementsrechtbank) authorised his extradition. The Deputy

Minister of Justice ordered the extradition on 7 September 1989. It

appears that after instituting summary proceedings the applicant has

been extradited. In the meantime he has served his prison sentence in

Norway and has subsequently returned to the United Kingdom.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained that his extradition amounted to inhuman

treatment as he had already spent 111/2 months in detention on remand in

Norway under severe circumstances (3 months of solitary confinement and

insufficient food) which seriously affected his health. In addition

he had been detained 5 months in the Netherlands pending his

extradition. Being tried and serving a sentence after these long

periods of detention was contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.

2. He further complained under Article 3 in conjunction with Article

8 of the Convention that his isolation in Norway would be unbearable

since his family and friends would not be able to visit him and since

he neither speaks nor understands Norwegian.

3. Finally, he complained under Articles 5 para. 3 and 6 para. 1 of

the Convention that during his detention on remand in Norway he had not

been brought promptly before a judge and that he had thus not been

tried within a reasonable time.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complained that his extradition to Norway amounted

to inhuman treatment as he would have to serve a sentence after a long

period of detention in unhealthy conditions. In this respect he

invokes Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention which reads:

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment."

The Commission notes that the applicant has been extradited to

a High Contracting Party, which has recognised the right ofindividual

petition set forth in Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention. Under

these circumstances the Commission finds that Article 3 (Art. 3) did

not prevent the Netherlands from extraditing the applicant to Norway

(see e.g. No. 12543/86, Dec. 2.12.86, D.R. 51 p. 272).

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as

being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

2. The applicant further complained under Article 3 in conjunction

with Article 8 (Art. 3+8) of the Convention about the isolation he

would have to endure in a Norwegian prison. He also complained that

he had not been brought promptly before a judge in Norway and that

therefore he had not been tried within a reasonable time. He invokes

Articles 5 para. 3 and 6 para. 1 (Art. 5-3, 6-1) of the Convention.

The Commission observes that these complaints do not concern any

fact for which the Netherlands authorities can be held responsible.

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as

being incompatible ratione personae with the Convention within the

meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant