In the case of J.D. 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 77/1995/583/669. 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
19 February 1996, and composed of the following judges:
Mr Thór Vilhjálmsson, Chairman,
Mr F. Gölcüklü,
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 13 September 1995 by
Mr J.D., a stateless person born as a Yugoslav national, 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 27 June 1995
on the application (no. 19508/92) lodged with the Commission by
Mr J.D. on 28 January 1992;
Whereas the applicant complained of the length of criminal
proceedings which had been brought against him before the
Netherlands courts, and alleged a breach of Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1) of the Convention, under which "In the determination
of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to
a ... hearing within a reasonable time ...";
Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his
application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of
Court B, stated that he sought a decision by the Court holding
that there had been a breach of Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) of
the Convention and ordering the respondent State to pay him
appropriate compensation for the damage he had allegedly
sustained on account of the length of the proceedings in issue;
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
"reasonable time" requirement in Article 6 para. 1
(art. 6-1) 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: THÓR VILHJÁLMSSON
Chairman
Signed: Herbert PETZOLD
Registrar
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy