Final resolution DH (99) 462

HUMAN RIGHTS

APPLICATION No. 25706/94

Roestenburg AGAINST the Netherlands

(Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 July 1999 at the 677th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as “the Convention”),

Having regard to Interim Resolution DH (97) 235, adopted on 15 May 1997 in the case of Roestenburg against the Netherlands, in which the Committee of Ministers decided that there had been in this case a violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3. c , of the Convention and to make public the report of the European Commission of Human Rights;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers examined the proposals made by the Commission when transmitting its report as regards just satisfaction to be awarded to the applicant, proposals supplemented by a letter of the President of the Commission dated 16 December 1997;

Whereas at the 618th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies, the Committee of Ministers, agre e ing with the Commission’s proposals, held by a decision adopted on 18 February 1998, in accordance with Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Convention, that the Government of the respondent State was to pay the applicant as just satisfaction, within three months, the sum of 2 700 Dutch guilders for non-material damage, material damage and costs and expenses and that interest should be payable on any unpaid sum, calculated on the basis of each full elapsed month of delay at the statutory rate applicable on the date of this decision, it being understood that the interest would accrue from the expiry of the time-limit until full payment was placed at the disposal of the applicant;

Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of the respondent State to inform it of the measures taken following its decisions of 15 May 1997 and 18 February 1998, having regard to the Netherlands’s obligation under Article 32, paragraph 4, of the Convention to abide by them;

Whereas during the examination of the case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the respondent State accordingly recalled that measures had already been taken to avoid new violations of the same kind as that found in this case notably through the change of jurisprudence following the Lala and Pelladoah cases against the Netherlands (see Resolutions DH (95) 240 and DH (95) 241) indicated that the Commission’s report as well as the Committee of Ministers’ decisions had been sent out to the authorities directly concerned;

Having noted the lack of interest shown by the applicant concerning the just satisfaction, the Committee of Ministers considers that he has waived his right to the payment of the just satisfaction,

Declares, after having taken note of the measures taken by the Government of the Netherlands, that it has exercised its fun c tions under Article 32 of the Convention in this case.