Search
document

Document text Analytics

T. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 18090/91 • ECHR ID: 001-952

Document date: July 4, 1991

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

T. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 18090/91 • ECHR ID: 001-952

Document date: July 4, 1991

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 18090/91

by T.

against the Netherlands

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 4 July 1991, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

J.A. FROWEIN

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

E. BUSUTTIL

G. JÖRUNDSSON

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

Mrs. G. H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

MM. F. MARTINEZ RUIZ

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs. J. LIDDY

MM. L. LOUCAIDES

J.-C. GEUS

M.P. PELLONPÄÄ

B. MARXER

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, 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 19 December

1990 by T. against the Netherlands and

registered on 16 April 1991 under file No. 18090/91;

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 facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as

follows.

The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1968 and residing at

Z., the Netherlands. He is represented before the Commission

by Mr. Peter M. Kempees, a lawyer practising in The Hague.

The applicant was arrested on 22 May 1990 on suspicion of

thefts and a violation of the Arms and Ammunition Act. On the same

day, at 14.15 hours, he was taken into custody (verzekering). On 25

May 1990 around 15.00 hours, he was brought before an investigating

judge (Rechter-Commissaris) in The Hague, who ordered his detention

for six days. On 30 May 1990, the Regional Court

(Arrondissementsrechtbank) of The Hague ordered the applicant's

detention on remand for a further period of 30 days.

The applicant appealed against the decision of 30 May 1990.

In his appeal he argued that he had not been brought promptly before a

judge as required by Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention. He also

referred to a "guideline" issued by the Dutch superior public

prosecutors (procureurs-generaal) on 22 March 1989, according to which

public prosecutors were requested to present their requests for

detention on remand at such time as to make it possible for the

arrested person to appear before an investigating judge within 72

hours from the beginning of the custody. The applicant noted that

this time-limit had been exceeded in the present case.

In its decision of 19 June 1990 on the appeal, the Court of

Appeal (Gerechtshof) of The Hague stated that, even if the said

"guideline" should be considered to lay down a rule which could be

invoked by the suspect, this would not mean that the detention ordered

by the investigating judge would be unlawful, since a deficiency

attached to a previous stage of the custody could not be an

independent ground for rejecting a subsequent request for detention on

remand. Nor were there, in the Court of Appeal's opinion, any very

special circumstances which in the specific case could justify a

different conclusion. The Court of Appeal therefore confirmed the

Regional Court's decision.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that he was not brought promptly

before a judge as required by Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that, following his arrest on 22 May

1990, he was not brought promptly before a judge as required by

Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) of the Convention.

The Commission notes that the applicant was arrested on 22 May

1990 and was brought on 25 May 1990 before an investigating judge who

ordered his detention for six days. Against this decision no legal

remedy was available.

However, after the Regional Court of The Hague, by decision of

30 May 1990, had prolonged the applicant's detention for a further

period of 30 days, the applicant appealed against this decision to the

Court of Appeal of The Hague which rejected the appeal on 19 June

1990. Even assuming that the application has been lodged within the

six months time-limit provided for in Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention,

the Commission notes that the applicant was brought before a judge

between 72 and 73 hours after his arrest and considers that in these

circumstances the condition in Article 5 para. 3 (Art. 5-3) as to

promptness was respected.

It follows that the application is therefore manifestly

ill-founded and must be rejected under Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2)

of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission by a majority

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant