THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38838/05
by VAN DALSUM & SCHOUTEN RECRUITMENT AND INTERIM MANAGEMENT B.V.
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 19 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Egbert Myjer,
Ineta Ziemele,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 October 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Van Dalsum & Schouten Recruitment and Interim Management B.V., is a limited liability company under Dutch law and has its statutory seat in Breda. It was represented before the Court by Ms M.H. de Borst, a lawyer practising in The Hague. The Dutch Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Deputy Agent, Ms L. Egmond, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
From 1997 onwards, the applicant company has been active in the field of consultancy, recruitment and interim management services. In a dispute between the applicant company and the Employee Insurances Schemes Implementing Body (Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen; “the UWV”) concerning salary payments, the applicant company appealed to the final level of jurisdiction, the Central Appeals Tribunal (Centrale Raad van Beroep; “the Tribunal”).
On 26 January 2005, the registry of the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicant company, announcing that its appeal would be considered during a hearing on 3 March 2005. The letter further stated that the applicant company was not obliged to be present at the hearing unless it received a summons. On 31 January 2005, the registry of the Tribunal forwarded a letter from UWV to the applicant company, which stated that UWV would not be appearing at the hearing of 3 March 2005. In reply, the applicant company notified the registry of the Tribunal on 2 March 2005 that it would also not be appearing at the hearing.
On 28 April 2005, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant company’s appeal. The judgment of the Tribunal included the statement that UWV had attended the hearing and that the applicant company had declined to do so.
On 19 May 2005, the applicant company sent a letter to UWV requesting an explanation as to why they had attended the hearing, since their letter of 31 January 2005 had stated that they would not attend. UWV responded by a letter of 25 May 2005, explaining that they had indeed intended not to appear but that they had nonetheless been requested to do so by the Tribunal. On 22 July 2005, the applicant company sent a letter to the Tribunal requesting a response to the explanation given by UWV. The Tribunal responded on 22 September 2005 and stated that there had been a number of cases involving UWV scheduled for 3 March 2005, and that UWV had given notice to the Tribunal that they did not intend to appear in any of these cases. The Tribunal had then requested UWV to try and appear in as many cases as possible.
The applicant company had not been informed of the Tribunal’s request to UWV.
COMPLAINT
The applicant company complained under Article 6 of the Convention that it had been denied a fair trial in proceedings in which its civil rights and obligations as well as a criminal charge against it had been determined, and that it had had no knowledge of the fact that UWV had been requested to attend the hearing before the Central Appeals Tribunal and it had thus not been able to respond to the arguments which UWV had been given the opportunity to present at that hearing.
THE LAW
The applicant company complained that it had been denied a fair trial, since its opposing party was requested to attend a hearing before the Central Appeals Tribunal without it having been made aware of this request.
However, the Court notes that it was informed by the Government by letter of 2 April 2009 that they had reached a preliminary agreement with the applicant company. By a letter of 29 July 2009 the applicant company informed the Court that it had reached a final agreement with the Government and that it wished to withdraw the present application.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, and having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) and (b) of the Convention, it is no longer justifiable to continue the examination of the application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy