Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF PELLADOAH AGAINST THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 16737/90 • ECHR ID: 001-55637

Document date: October 19, 1995

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

CASE OF PELLADOAH AGAINST THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 16737/90 • ECHR ID: 001-55637

Document date: October 19, 1995

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 54

(art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),

Having regard to the judgment of the European Court of Human

Rights in the Pelladoah case delivered on 22 September 1994 and

transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers;

Recalling that the case originated in an application

(No. 16737/90) against the Netherlands, lodged with the European

Commission of Human Rights on 17 April 1990, under Article 25

(art. 25) of the Convention, by Mr Satyanund Pelladoah, a Mauritian

national, and that the Commission declared admissible the complaint

that he had not had a fair trial in that his counsel had not been

heard by the Court of Appeal;

Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the

Commission on 12 July 1993 and by the Government of the Netherlands

on 30 August 1993;

Whereas in its judgment of 22 September 1994 the Court

unanimously:

- held that there had been a violation of Article 6,

paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention taken together with

Article 6, paragraph 3.c (art. 6-3-c);

- held that the finding of a violation constituted in itself

sufficient just satisfaction;

- dismissed the remainder of the claim for just satisfaction;

Having regard to the Rules adopted by the Committee of

Ministers concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the

Convention;

Having invited the Government of the Netherlands to inform it

of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the judgment

of 22 September 1994, having regard to the Netherlands' obligation

under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide by it;

Whereas, during the examination of the case by the Committee

of Ministers, the Government of the Netherlands gave the Committee

information about the measures taken in consequence of the

judgment, which information appears in the appendix to this

resolution,

Declares, after having taken note of the information supplied

by the Government of the Netherlands, that it has exercised its

functions under Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention in this

case.

Appendix to Resolution DH (95) 241

Information provided by the Government of the Netherlands

during the examination of the Pelladoah case

by the Committee of Ministers

The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights has been

given wide publicity in the Netherlands. The Convention is

accepted by the courts to be directly applicable (to have direct

effect) in the domestic law. In two recent decisions concerned

with questions similar to those raised in the Pelladoah case

(Strafkammer decision of 6 December 1994 in the case against

Roby Dennis Ong-A-Fat (No. 98.306); Strafkammer decision of

13 December 1994 in the case against Abdorsa El Mernikh

(No. 98.354)), the Supreme Court (the Hoge Raad) has furthermore

found it justified, on the basis of the judgments of the European

Court in the Lala and Pelladoah cases, to change its earlier

case-law so as to conform with the jurisprudence of the European

Court. This new case-law has been confirmed in several other cases

(see Hoge Raad Strafkammer decisions of 10 January 1995 in the

cases against Mardoyi Andrada Lara and against Fokke Johannes

Stoker, Nos. 98.547 and 98.642, respectively). According to the

new case-law an accused who is absent from the public hearing to

which he has been summoned, has the right to have the defence

presented by counsel, even if the absence is not considered

justified.

In view of these developments the Government of the

Netherlands considers that there is no risk of any repetition of

the violation found by the European Court in the present case and

that it has, accordingly, fulfilled the Netherlands' obligations

under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant