Search
document

Document text Analytics

CASE OF VAN DER SLUIJS, ZUIDERVELD AND KLAPPE

Doc ref: 9362/81;9363/81;9387/81 • ECHR ID: 001-55428

Document date: May 31, 1985

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

CASE OF VAN DER SLUIJS, ZUIDERVELD AND KLAPPE

Doc ref: 9362/81;9363/81;9387/81 • ECHR ID: 001-55428

Document date: May 31, 1985

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 Van der Sluijs, Zuiderveld and Klappe case, delivered on

22 May 1984 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of

Ministers;

Recalling that this case had its origin in three applications against

the Netherlands lodged in 1981 with the European Commission of Human

Rights under Article 25 (art. 25) of the convention by three Dutch

nationals, Mr Jan Christian Martinus Van der Sluijs,

Mr Harm Pieter Zuiderveld and Mr Albertus Laurentius Klappe, alleging

violation of Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3), of the convention;

Recalling that this case had been brought before the Court by the

European Commission of Human Rights;

Whereas in its judgment of 22 May 1984 the Court unanimously:

- rejected the objection that Mr Zuiderveld and Mr Klappe could not be

regarded as victims within the meaning of Article 25 (art. 25);

- took formal note of the withdrawal by the Government of the

objection pleading non-exhaustion of domestic remedies;

- held that there had been a violation of Article 5, paragraph 3

(art. 5-3), of the convention in respect of each applicant;

- held that the respondent State was to pay each applicant the sum of

three hundred (300) Dutch Guilders under Article 50 (art. 50);

Having regard to the "Rules 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, having

regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the convention

to abide by the judgment;

Whereas, during the examination of this case by the Committee of

Ministers, the Government of the Netherlands informed the Committee of

the measures taken in consequence of the judgment, which information

appears at the appendix to this resolution;

Having taken note of this information and having satisfied itself that

the Government of the Netherlands has paid to the applicants the sum

awarded by the Court under Article 50 (art. 50) of the convention,

Declares that it has exercised its functions under Article 54

(art. 54) of the convention in this case.

Appendix to Resolution DH (85) 11

Information provided by the Government of the Netherlands

during the examination of the Van der Sluijs, Zuiderveld and Klappe case

by the Committee of Ministers

As a consequence of, inter alia, the complaints lodged by the

above-mentioned applicants, the Netherlands Government has taken the

following measures with respect to Article 5, paragraph 3 (art. 5-3),

of the convention:

A. In March 1983 the following regulations came into force after

having been incorporated into the rules governing the application of

military penal and disciplinary law as laid down by ministerial order.

The following rules shall apply to military suspects remanded in

custody, such as the conscientious objectors in question:

a. The commanding officer may order a serviceman to be remanded

or kept in custody only if two conditions are fulfilled:

1. a remand in custody must be admissible in the case in question,

2. there must be grounds for a remand in the case in question;

b. As soon as the grounds on which the remand in custody was

ordered or ordered to be continued cease to be applicable the

commanding officer shall order the release of the defendant;

c. If the commanding officer orders the suspect to be taken into

or kept in custody, where possible subsequent to having interviewed

the suspect or having arranged for the suspect to be interviewed on

his behalf, he shall ensure that the military prosecutor is informed

of the case by telephone as soon as possible and in any event no later

than two days after the warrant of arrest is executed;

d. If the suspect is to appear before the military prosecutor,

the commanding officer shall ensure in consultation with the military

prosecutor that the time and place of the hearing are such that within

four days of the execution of the warrant of arrest:

1. the military prosecutor is able to submit his recommendations to

the authority to which the case is to be referred,

2. the authority to which the case is to be referred may issue a

referral order (which shall include a ruling in respect of the

arrest),

3. the defendant may be heard by the examining officer,

4. the defendant may appear before a court martial which shall rule

at the request of the military prosecutor whether or not to uphold the

order of arrest.

B. Bills for the revision of the administration of military

justice are currently under consideration by the lower House of

Parliament. One of the proposals is that the provisions governing

remands in custody in the Dutch criminal code should also apply to

military servicemen.

C. The Government of the Netherlands has paid to the applicants

the sum awarded by the European Court of Human Rights under Article 50

(art. 50) of the convention.

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant