Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF FINKENSIEPER v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 19525/92 • ECHR ID: 001-53

Document date: March 14, 1996

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

CASE OF FINKENSIEPER v. THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 19525/92 • ECHR ID: 001-53

Document date: March 14, 1996

Cited paragraphs only

In the case of Finkensieper 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 89/1995/595/681. 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 24 January and

21 February 1996, and composed of the following judges:

Mr F. Matscher, Chairman,

Mr L.-E. Pettiti,

Mr S.K. Martens,

and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,

Having regard to the application against the Kingdom of

the Netherlands lodged with the Court on 6 October 1995 by a

Netherlands national, Mr Hans Otto Theodoor Finkensieper, within

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

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

Whereas the Netherlands have recognised the compulsory

jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention)

(art. 46) and ratified Protocol No. 9 (P9) to the Convention,

Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends Article 48 (art. 48) of the

Convention 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) (art. 48-1-a,

art. 48-1-d) of the Convention;

Having regard to the Commission's report of 17 May 1995 on

the application (no. 19525/92) lodged with the Commission by

Mr Finkensieper on 23 December 1991;

Whereas the applicant complained that he had not had a

fair trial because his requests to examine certain witnesses

before the Court of Appeal had been refused, and alleged a breach

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

Convention, under which "In the determination of ... any criminal

charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing

...", and "Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the

following minimum rights: ... (d) to examine or have examined

witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and

examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions

as 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, complained about an incorrect, or at least unduly

restrictive, interpretation by the Commission concerning the

right of an accused person to have the opportunity at any stage

in the criminal proceedings to question a witness, or to have a

witness questioned, in order to challenge or cast doubt on the

credibility and reliability of that witness;

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

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 (d)

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

14 March 1996 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.

Signed: Franz MATSCHER

Chairman

Signed: Herbert PETZOLD

Registrar

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant