Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF FELDBRUGGE AGAINST THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 8562/79 • ECHR ID: 001-55521

Document date: February 20, 1992

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

CASE OF FELDBRUGGE AGAINST THE NETHERLANDS

Doc ref: 8562/79 • ECHR ID: 001-55521

Document date: February 20, 1992

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 judgments of the European Court of

Human Rights in the Feldbrugge case delivered on 29 May 1986 and

27 July 1987 and transmitted the same days to the Committee of

Ministers;

Recalling that the case originated in an application against

the Netherlands lodged with the European Commission of Human

Rights on 16 February 1979 under Article 25 (art. 25) of the

Convention by Mrs Geziena Hendrika Maria Feldbrugge, a Dutch

national, who complained that she had not had a fair hearing in

proceedings she brought before an appeals board in order to

continue receiving a health insurance allowance;

Recalling that the case was brought before the Court by the

Commission on 12 October 1984;

Whereas in its judgment of 29 May 1986 the Court:

- held by ten votes to seven that Article 6, paragraph 1

(art. 6-1), of the Convention, was applicable to the

circumstances of the present case;

- held by ten votes to seven that Article 6, paragraph 1

(art. 6-1), had been violated;

- held unanimously that the question of the application of

Article 50 (art. 50) was not ready for decision;

Whereas in its judgment of 27 July 1987 the Court

unanimously:

- held unanimously that the Netherlands were to pay to the

applicant 10 000 Dutch guilders for non-pecuniary damage and to

reimburse her for consultation expenses to the amount of

1 502 guilders;

- rejected unanimously 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

judgments of 29 May 1986 and 27 July 1987, having regard to its

obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the Convention to abide

by them;

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 judgments, which information appears in the Appendix to this

Resolution;

Having satisfied itself that the Government of the

Netherlands has paid the applicant the sums provided for in the

judgment of 27 July 1987,

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 (92) 8

Information provided by the Government of the Netherlands

during the examination of the Feldbrugge case

by the Committee of Ministers

The Appeals Act 1955 (Beroepswet) was amended by an Act

dated 11 September 1991 which entered into force on

1 October 1991.

For disputes concerning fitness or unfitness for work,

Section 142, paragraph 1, of the 1955 Act, mentioned in paragraph

19 of the Court's judgment, provided that an appeal against the

decision of the President of the Appeals Board (Raad van Beroep)

lay with the full Appeals board, but solely on four grounds

specifically listed. If the appeal (verzet) brought by one of

the parties was not based on one or the other of these grounds,

it was declared inadmissible.

Section 1, paragraph y, of the 1991 Act amending Section 142

of the 1955 Act no longer mentions these four conditions of

admissibility of the appeal. Under Section 142, paragraph 2, as

amended, the parties will have henceforth, at their request, the

opportunity of consulting the case file before expiry of the

30 days' time-limit set for lodging the appeal. Furthermore,

Section 142, paragraph 5, as amended, provides that the Appeals

Board may declare the appeal inadmissible but that it must give

the applicant the opportunity to be heard at a public hearing.

The sums awarded by the Court to the applicant were paid on

14 August 1987.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant