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 on 17 May 1995 by the European
Commission of Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the
Convention relating to the application lodged on 23 December 1991 by Mr Hans
Otto Theodoor Finkensieper against the Netherlands (Application No. 19525/92);
Whereas on 10 July 1995 the Commission transmitted the said report to the
Committee of Ministers and the case has not been referred to the European Court
of Human Rights, either by the Commission or by a state entitled to do so under
Article 48
(art. 48) of the Convention, within the time-limit of three months from the
transmission of the report to the Chairman of the Committee of Ministers;
however, whereas within this time-limit, the applicant seized the Court in
accordance with Protocol No. 9
(P9), but considering that the screening panel of the Court decided on 14 March
1996 that this case would not be considered by the Court, the Committee of
Ministers is now called upon to take a decision in accordance with Article 32
(art. 32) of the Convention and with Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention as
amended by Article 5 of Protocol No. 9 (P9-5) for those states having ratified
the latter;
Whereas in his application, declared admissible by the Commission on 30
November 1994, the applicant complained of a violation of the right to a fair
trial within the context of criminal proceedings, in particular of a violation
of the right to examine witnesses;
Whereas in its report the Commission expressed, by ten votes to three the
opinion that there had been no violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3.d
(art. 6-1, art. 6-3-d), of the Convention;
Whereas, at the 564th meeting of the Ministers' Deputies held on 30 April
1996, 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 no violation of
Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3.d (art. 6-1,
art. 6-3-d), of the Convention,
Declares, that it has exercised its functions under Article 32 (art. 32)
of the Convention in this case;
Authorises the publication of the report adopted by the Commission in this
case.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy