DIJKSTRA v. THE NETHERLANDS



              EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

                   Application No. 12128/86

                      Th.K.J.M. DIJKSTRA

                            against

                        the NETHERLANDS

                   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION

                    adopted on 19 May 1992

                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

PART I:   STATEMENT OF THE FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

PART II:  SOLUTION REACHED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

                         INTRODUCTION

1.   This Report relates to the application introduced under

Article 25 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by Th.K.J.M. Dijkstra against the

Netherlands on 30 November 1985. It was registered on

29 April 1986 under file No. 12128/86.

     The Government of the Netherlands were represented by their

Agent, Mrs. D.S. van Heukelom, succeeded by

Mr. K. de Vey Mestdagh, both of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

The Hague.

2.   On 8 April 1991 the Commission declared the complaint under

Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the Convention admissible and the

remainder of the application inadmissible. It then proceeded to

carry out its task under Article 28 para. 1 of the Convention

which provides as follows:

     "In the event of the Commission accepting a petition

     referred to it:

     a.   it shall, with a view to ascertaining the facts,

          undertake together with the representatives of the

          parties an examination of the petition and, if need

          be, an investigation, for the effective conduct of

          which the States concerned shall furnish all necessary

          facilities, after an exchange of views with the

          Commission;

     b.   it shall at the same time place itself at the disposal

          of the parties concerned with a view to securing a

          friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of

          respect for Human Rights as defined in this

          Convention."

3.   The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly

settlement of the case and on 19 May 1992 it adopted this Report,

which, in accordance with Article 28 para. 2 of the Convention,

is confined to a brief statement of the facts and of the solution

reached.

The following members were present when the Report was adopted:

          MM.  S. TRECHSEL

               F. ERMACORA

               E. BUSUTTIL

               A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

               A. WEITZEL

               J.-C. SOYER

               H.G. SCHERMERS

               H. DANELIUS

          Mrs. G.H. THUNE

          Sir  Basil HALL

          MM.  F. MARTINEZ

               C.L. ROZAKIS

          Mrs. J. LIDDY

          MM.  L. LOUCAIDES

               J.-C. GEUS

               M. P. PELLONPÄÄ

               B. MARXER

                            PART I

                    STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

4.   The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1945, and residing

at Maastricht, the Netherlands.

5.   On 2 December 1983 the Regional Court (Gerecht in Eerste

Aanleg) of Curaçao convicted the applicant in absentia of a

traffic offence, despite her earlier request to have her case

adjourned in view of her imminent hospitalisation.

6.   On 25 May 1984 the decision was notified to the applicant.

Her subsequent objection (verzet) was rejected on 15 June 1984

by the Regional Court for being out of time.

7.   Before the Commission the applicant complained that she did

not have the opportunity to defend herself in person, invoking

Article 6 para. 3 (c) of the Convention.

                            PART II

                       SOLUTION REACHED

8.   Following the decision on the admissibility of the

application, the Commission placed itself at the disposal of the

parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement in

accordance with Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention and

invited the parties to submit any proposals they wished to make.

9.   In accordance with the usual practice, the Secretary to the

Commission, acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted

the parties to explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly

settlement.

10.  By letter of 11 March 1992, the Agent of the Government

submitted the following proposal:

                          "SETTLEMENT

     1.   The Government will pay the applicant an amount of Dfl

     1.000,- as ex gratia allowance;

     2.   All documents, as far as public according to any

     regulation, can be used for teaching purposes.

     The above proposal is made on the explicit understanding

     that it does not imply any recognition by the Government

     that the Netherlands-Antillian authorities would have

     treated the applicant incorrectly."

11.  On 14 April 1992 the applicant informed the Commisson that

she agreed with the Government's proposal.

12.  At its session on 19 May 1992, the Commission noted that the

parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a

settlement. It further considered, having regard to

Article 28 para. 1 (b) of the Convention, that the friendly

settlement of the case had been secured on the basis of respect

for Human Rights as defined in the Convention.

13.  For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.

Secretary to the Commission               Vice-President of the

                                              Commission

     (H.C. KRÜGER)                           (S. TRECHSEL)

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy