Search
document

Document text Analytics

B. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 11294/84 • ECHR ID: 001-375

Document date: October 7, 1987

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

B. v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 11294/84 • ECHR ID: 001-375

Document date: October 7, 1987

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 11294/84

by E.B.

against the Netherlands

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private

on 7 October 1987 the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

S. TRECHSEL

F. ERMACORA

M.A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES

E. BUSUTTIL

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

H.G. SCHERMERS

H. DANELIUS

G. BATLINER

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs. G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. F. MARTINEZ

Mrs. J. LIDDY

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

5 November 1984 by E.B. against the Netherlands and

registered on 10 December 1984 under file N° 11294/84;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of

the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

Having regard to the decision of the Commission of 18 July 1986

to communicate the application to the respondent Government;

Having regard to the written observations of the Government;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

&_THE FACTS&S

The facts of the case as they have been submitted by the

applicant may be summarised as follows:

The applicant is a Dutch citizen born in 1964 and at present

residing at V., the Netherlands. In the proceedings before the

Commission she is represented by Mr. L. Vellerman, a lawyer practising

at Amsterdam.

It appears that the applicant, who at the relevant time was

employed with a cleaning company, received sickness benefits on the

basis of the Health Insurance Act 1913 (Ziektewet) from

12 October 1982 until 6 June 1983.

On 6 June 1983, the Occupational Association for Retail,

Craftsmen and Housewives (Bedrijfsvereniging von Detailhandel,

Ambachten en Huisvrouwen) of Utrecht decided that the applicant was

no longer entitled to sickness benefits since she could no longer be

considered unfit for work.

The applicant, on 30 June 1983, appealed against this decision

to the Appeals Board (Raad van Beroep) of Amsterdam since she

considered that she was still prevented from working because of

illness.

On 16 December 1983, the President of the Appeals Board

declared the applicant's appeal ill-founded in accordance with the

advice of two permanent medical experts consulted by him in accordance

with Section 135 of the Appeals Act (Beroepswet).

The applicant thereupon filed an objection (verzet) against

this decision, claiming that she had been denied a fair hearing,

contrary to the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

However, on 11 April 1984, the Appeals Board declared the

applicant's objection inadmissible, since none of the grounds set out

in Section 142 para. 1 of the Appeals Act applied.

Under this provision no appeal is possible unless:

- the permanent medical expert had already dealt with the case

in another capacity;

- the permanent medical expert failed to consult both sides and

to examine the person concerned as Article 137 of the Act

prescribes;

- the decision of the President does not concern the dispute;

- the President has not followed the advice of the permanent

medical expert.

On 17 April 1984, the applicant appealed against this decision

to the Central Appeals Board (Centrale Raad van Beroep) at Utrecht,

but her appeal was declared inadmissible on 16 May 1984, on the sole

ground that Section 142 para. 1 of the Appeals Act provides that

decisions to declare an objection inadmissible are not subject to any

appeal.

&_COMPLAINTS&S

The applicant complains that she did not have a fair trial

before an independent and impartial tribunal concerning her claim

under the Health Insurance Act. She contends that the President of

the Appeals Board determined her civil rights without hearing her and

on the basis of reports submitted by the permanent medical experts of

the Appeals Board.

She also claims that she had no further possibility of

having her civil rights determined after a hearing before an

independent and impartial tribunal.

The applicant has invoked Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

&_PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION&S

The application was introduced on 5 November 1984 and

registered on 10 December 1984.

In view of the similarity of the issues the Commission

adjourned its examination of the case pending the judgment of the

Court in the Feldbrugge case (Judgment of 29 May 1986).

On 18 July 1986 the Commission decided to bring the

application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite

them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of

the application in the light of the Court's judgment in the Feldbrugge

case.

The Government's observations reached the Secretariat on

16 October 1986 and were sent to the applicant's lawyer, who was

invited to send any written observations in reply before 15 December 1986.

Since no reply was received the Secretariat sent a reminder on

19 February 1987, drawing the applicant's attention to Rule 44 para. 1

of the Commission's Rules of Procedure which provides, inter alia,

that the Commission may strike a case out of its list of cases where

the circumstances, in particular the applicant's failure to observe

time-limits set, lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not

intend to pursue the application.

Having received no reply, the Secretariat sent the applicant a

letter by registered post on 10 July 1987 requesting her to inform the

Secretariat whether she intended to pursue the application and warning

her of the consequence that the application would be struck off the

list should no answer be received.

The Secretariat again received no reply.

&_REASONS FOR THE DECISION&S

The Commission considers that the applicant has lost interest

in pursuing her application and sees no reason relating to the general

interest to continue an examination of the application since similar

issues have already been examined by the Commission and the European

Court of Human Rights in the Feldbrugge case (Feldbrugge v.

the Netherlands, Comm. Report 9.5.84, Eur. Court H.R., judgment of

29 May 1986, Series A No. 99).

Having regard to Rule 44 para. 1 (b) of its Rules of

Procedure, the Commission

&_DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.&S

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant