Hibbert v. the Netherlands (dec.)

Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 3

February 1999

Hibbert v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 38087/97

Decision 26.1.1999

Article 6

Article 6-2

Presumption of innocence

Refusal of compensation for detention on remand: inadmissible

Article 34

Victim

Death of applicant: applicant’s mother entitled to pursue complaint under Article 6 § 2

On 24 September 1991, the applicant was arrested and detained on remand on suspicion of having committed robbery. On 20 December 1991, the Regional Court of Amsterdam acquitted him on account of the lack of sufficient evidence and ordered his immediate release. The public prosecutor filed an appeal. The Court of Appeal quashed the first instance decision, and convicted the applicant for robbery and extortion and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. Upon his appeal on points of law, the Supreme Court quashed the decision and referred the case back to the Court of Appeal, which acquitted him again for lack of sufficient evidence. The applicant then claimed compensation for the time spent in pre-trial detention and reimbursement of the legal costs incurred. His requests were both dismissed by the Court of Appeal. He died on 9 August 1998.

Article 34: Although the heirs of a deceased applicant cannot claim a general right to have the examination of his application to the Court continued, close relatives have, on a number of occasions, been granted the right by the Court to act on behalf of the deceased applicant. The Court, in the instant case, decided that the deceased applicant’s mother could pursue the application on his behalf.

Inadmissible under Article 6 § 2: A statement suggesting guilt would offend the principle of presumption of innocence, whereas a mere reference to a state of suspicion has been deemed unobjectionable by the Court in previous cases. In the present circumstances, the Court of Appeal’s refusal to grant the applicant compensation was based on the fact that several witnesses had made incriminating statements as to his involvement in punishable acts, establishing thereby “reasonable suspicion” that had justified his pre-trial detention. Therefore, the Court of Appeal’s decision did not violate the presumption of innocence: manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes

 

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy