EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
SECOND CHAMBER
Application No. 14422/88
S. W.
against
the NETHERLANDS
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
adopted on 22 May 1992
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 European Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by S. W. against the Netherlands on
20 September 1988. It was registered on 1 December 1988 under file
No. 14422/88.
2. The applicant was represented before the Commission by
Mr. G.P. Hamer, a lawyer practising in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. The
respondent Government were represented by their Agent,
Mr. K. de Vey Mestdagh, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. On 9 April 1991 the Commission referred the application to the
Second Chamber of the Commission.
4. On 13 January 1992 the European Commission of Human Rights
(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."
5. The Commission found that the parties had reached a friendly
settlement of the case and on 22 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, President of the Second Chamber
A. WEITZEL
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
PART I
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
6. The applicant, a Dutch citizen, lives in Amsterdam, the
Netherlands. On 16 March 1988 the applicant's brother requested the
District Court judge of Amsterdam to issue a judicial authorisation to
place the applicant in a mental hospital.
On 18 March 1988 the District Court judge held a hearing at the
District Court, where a municipal psychiatrist, the applicant's brother
and the applicant's lawyer were present. Following this hearing, the
District Court judge heard the applicant.
On 23 March 1988 the District Court judge heard the applicant's
lawyer. On 24 March 1988 the District Court judge contacted the
applicant's treating psychiatrist by telephone on the basis of a letter
of 10 March 1988 from the psychiatrist and subsequently issued the
judicial authorisation for the applicant's placement in a mental
hospital. A copy of the judicial authorisation was sent to the
applicant's lawyer.
7. On 28 March 1988 the applicant was conducted by the police to a
mental hospital, where he learnt of the judicial authorisation. The
applicant subsequently contacted a lawyer and requested the Hospital
Board on 14 June 1988 to discharge him.
8. The Board transmitted the request to the public prosecutor, who
on 14 July 1988 submitted it to the Regional Court. On 9 August 1988
the judicial authorisation was lifted by the Hospital Board following
a recommendation for discharge by the responsible medical officer. The
request to the Regional Court was consequently withdrawn.
9. The applicant complained before the Commission that his detention
and the proceedings concerned violated Article 5 paras. 1, 2 and 4 and
Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
PART II
SOLUTION REACHED
10. 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.
11. In accordance with the usual practice, the Chamber Secretary,
acting on the Commission's instructions, contacted the parties to
explore the possibilities of reaching a friendly settlement.
12. By letter of 23 April 1992 the respondent Government informed the
Commission that a friendly settlement had been reached in the following
terms:
"The Government will pay the applicant Dfl 7.962,- as just
satisfaction, including Dfl 2.962,- for the expenses and
fees of his lawyer."
13. By letter of 14 May 1992 to the Commission the applicant's lawyer
confirmed that a friendly settlement of the case had been reached on
the above terms.
14. At its session of 22 May 1992 the Commission 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.
For these reasons, the Commission adopted this Report.
Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy