The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 32
(art. 32) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention"),
Having regard to the report drawn up by the European
Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31)
of the Convention relating to the application lodged on 12 May 1990
by Mr Watze De Vries against the Netherlands
(Application No. 16690/90);
Whereas on 7 December 1993 the Commission transmitted the said
report to the Committee of Ministers and whereas the period of
three months provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1),
of the Convention has elapsed without the case having been brought
before the European Court of Human Rights in pursuance of
Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;
Whereas in his application, declared admissible by the
Commission on 2 December 1992, the applicant complained that he did
not have a fair hearing as the judicial authorities' failure to
respect the statutory procedural requirements prevented him from
appealing in time against a decision by the court of first instance
depriving him of the guardianship over his two children, that this
decision unjustly interfered with his right to respect for his
family life and that the judicial authorities' oversights deprived
him of an effective remedy against the decision in question;
Whereas in its report adopted on 13 October 1993, the
Commission expressed, unanimously, the opinion that there had been
a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the
Convention, but not of Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, and
that it was not necessary to examine whether there had been any
violation of Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention;
Whereas, at the 512th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies, held
on 3 and 4 May 1994, the Committee of Ministers, agreeing with the
opinion expressed by the Commission, held, having voted in
accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1
(art. 32-1), of the Convention, that there had been in this case a
violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the Convention,
but not of Article 8 (art. 8);
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
21 October 1994;
Whereas, at the 522nd meeting of the Deputies, held on 5 and
6 December 1994, the Committee of Ministers decided, in accordance
with Article 32, paragraph 2 (art. 32-2), of the Convention, that
the Government of the Netherlands was to pay the applicant as just
satisfaction, within three months, 4 500 Dutch guilders in respect
of non-pecuniary damage and 2 705,18 Dutch guilders in respect of
costs and expenses, namely a total sum of 7 205,18 Dutch guilders;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers invited the Government of
the Netherlands to inform it of the measures taken following its
decisions of 4 May and 6 December 1994, having regard to the
Netherlands' obligation under Article 32, paragraph 4 (art. 32-4),
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
Committee's decisions, which information appears in the appendix to
this resolution;
Whereas the Committee of Ministers satisfied itself that on
21 December 1994, that is within the time-limit set, the Government
of the Netherlands paid the applicant the total sum of
7 205,18 Dutch guilders as just satisfaction,
Declares, having taken note of the measures taken by the
Government of the Netherlands, that it has exercised its functions
under Article 32 (art. 32) of the Convention in this case;
Appendix to Resolution DH (95) 196
Information provided by the Government of the Netherlands
during the examination of the case of De Vries
by the Committee of Ministers
An Act of 7 July 1994, published in the Staatsblad 1994:570,
and in force since 1 April 1994, has amended the Code of Civil
Procedure in the fields of the law of persons and of family law by
providing, inter alia, certain additional guarantees to those
contained in Articles 909, 910, paragraph 4, 913, paragraph 1.b and
938, paragraph 2, of the Code (see paragraphs 30 to 35 of the
Commission's report in the De Vries case).
Thus a new second paragraph to Article 429 K provides that in
all cases which start with a petition judgment shall be rendered at
a public hearing. According to the new Article 804 the judge
shall, at the main hearing, indicate the session at which judgment
shall be given.
The new Article 805 provides that the registrar shall transmit
the judgment directly after its rendering to, amongst others, the
petitioner, the parties concerned, both those who were present at
the main hearing and those who were not present on this occasion
but who were communicated a copy of the petition. This article
also states that when communicating the judgment, the registrar
shall indicate the time-limits and manner of appeal.
Article 806 adds that the time-limit for appealing is two
months. As far as the petitioner, the persons who have been
provided with a copy of the judgment or to whom such a copy has
been sent, the starting point for the time-limit is the day
judgment was rendered. For the other persons concerned the
time-limit starts to run from the date of notification or from the
date they otherwise came to know of the judgment.
The Government of the Netherlands considers that these
changes, viewed also in the light of the status of the Convention
and of the Strasbourg case-law in domestic law, will prevent the
repetition of the violation found by the Committee of Ministers in
the present case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy