EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
SECOND CHAMBER
Application No. 15942/90
D.R.
against
the Netherlands
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 13 October 1993)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
PART II: SOLUTION REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
INTRODUCTION
1. This Report relates to the application introduced under
Article 25 of the Convention of the European Convention on Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms by D.R. against the Netherlands on
21 August 1989. It was registered on 4 January 1990 under file
No. 15942/90.
2. The applicant was represented before the Commission by
Mr. Th.A. de Roos, a lawyer practising at Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
The respondent Government were represented by their Agent,
Mr. K. de Vey Mestdagh, of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. On 14 October 1992 the Commission (Second Chamber) declared the
application admissible. 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."
4. The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had
reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 13 October 1993 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, President
H. DANELIUS
G. JÖRUNDSSON
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
PART I
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
5. The applicant is a Dutch citizen born in 1970. At the time of
the introduction of the application, he was detained at the State
Institution for Youngsters (Rijksinstituut voor Jongeren) in Amsterdam,
the Netherlands.
6. On 6 January 1986 the Amsterdam Regional Court
(Arrondissementsrechtbank) sentenced the applicant to placement in an
institution for special treatment (inrichting voor buitengewone
behandeling) on charges of manslaughter.
7. On 6 June 1989 the Public Prosecutor (Officier van Justitie)
filed a prolongation request. At the hearing before the Regional
Court, the applicant's representative objected that the applicant's
detention was unlawful since the initial order had expired and that
therefore no prolongation could be ordered, as the Public Prosecutor
introduced his prolongation request more than two years after the
initial order. On 15 June 1989 the Regional Court prolonged the
applicant's detention.
8. The applicant complained before the Commission that there had
been a violation of Article 5 paras. 1 and 4 of the Convention in that
his detention was unlawful and in that the lawfulness of his detention
was not speedily reviewed.
PART II
SOLUTION REACHED
9. Following the decision on the admissibility of the application,
the Commission (Second Chamber) 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.
10. In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary,
acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to
discuss with them the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.
11. Between 8 December 1992 and 7 September 1993 the parties
exchanged various letters with a view to such a settlement.
12. By letter of 15 June 1993 the Netherlands Government informed the
Commission that, in order to reach a friendly settlement, they were
willing to pay an ex gratia amount of 2.000,- Dutch guilders to the
applicant and the costs incurred by him in the proceedings before the
Commission insofar as they are not covered by legal aid granted at
domestic level and/or by the Council of Europe.
13. By letter of 7 September 1993 the applicant's representative
informed the Commission that the applicant accepted the Government's
proposals and that a specification of the applicant's legal costs would
follow.
14. At its session on 13 October 1993 the Commission (Second Chamber)
noted that the parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of
a settlement. It further found, 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.
15. For these reasons, the Commission (Second Chamber) adopted this
Report.
Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy