Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF MENCKEBERG v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 25514/94 • ECHR ID: 001-111

Document date: April 11, 1997

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

CASE OF MENCKEBERG v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 25514/94 • ECHR ID: 001-111

Document date: April 11, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

In the case of Menckeberg v. the Netherlands (1),

The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights,

constituted in accordance with Article 48 para. 2 (art. 48-2) of the

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

("the Convention") and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B (2),

_______________

Notes by the Registrar

1. The case is numbered 3/1997/787/988. The first number is the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the

relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the

case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its

creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications

to the Commission.

2. Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply

to all cases concerning the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9).

________________

Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 21 February 1997, and

composed of the following judges:

Mr C. Russo, Chairman,

Mr A. Spielmann,

Mr P. van Dijk,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,

Having regard to the application against the

Kingdom of the Netherlands lodged with the Court on 8 January 1997 by

a Netherlands national, Mr Guno Vincentius Menckeberg, within the

three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of

the Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47);

Whereas the Netherlands has recognised the compulsory

jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention (art. 46)) and

ratified Protocol No. 9 to the Convention (P9), Article 5 (P9-5) of

which amends Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) so as to enable a

person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having

lodged a complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights

("the Commission") to refer the case to the Court;

Noting that the present case has not been referred to the Court

by either the Government of the respondent State or the Commission

under Article 48 para. 1 (a) or (d) of the Convention (art. 48-1-a,

art. 48-1-d);

Having regard to the Commission's report of 16 October 1996 on

the application (no. 25514/94) lodged with the Commission by

Mr Menckeberg on 6 October 1994;

Whereas the applicant, who was detained in connection with

another criminal case at the relevant time, complained of the failure

on the part of the judicial authorities to notify him in person of the

date of the hearing of the appeal in the criminal case against him, to

make sufficient efforts to establish his whereabouts and adjourn the

hearing, and to allow his counsel to conduct the defence in his

absence, and alleged a breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention

(art. 6-1), under which "In the determination ... of any criminal

charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing ... by [a]

... tribunal ...", and of Article 6 para. 3 (art. 6-3), under which

"Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following

minimum rights: ... (c) to defend himself in person or through

legal assistance of his own choosing...; (d) to examine or have

examined witnesses against him...";

Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his

application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B,

stated that he sought a decision by the Court holding that his rights

under Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention (art. 6-1,

art. 6-3-c, art. 6-3-d) had been violated;

Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) and

Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,

1. Finds that

(a) the case raises no serious question affecting the

interpretation or application of the Convention, as the

Court has already established case-law on the relevant

requirements of Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (c) and (d) of

the Convention (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c, art. 6-3-d); and

(b) the case does not, for any other reason, warrant

consideration by the Court, as, in the event of a finding

that there has been a breach of the Convention, the

Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe can award

the applicant just satisfaction, having regard to any

proposals made by the Commission;

2. Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be

considered by the Court.

Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on

11 April 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: Carlo RUSSO

Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

Registrar

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant