EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
SECOND CHAMBER
Application No. 14847/89
Johannes Henricus VAN LIESHOUT
against
the NETHERLANDS
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
adopted on 7 July 1992
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
PART I: STATEMENT OF THE FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
PART II: SOLUTION REACHED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
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 Johannes Henricus van Lieshout
against the Netherlands on 8 November 1988. It was registered on
31 March 1989 under file No. 14847/89.
2. The applicant was represented before the Commission by
Mr. H.J.M.G.M. van der Meijden, a lawyer practising in Ermelo, the
Netherlands. The respondent Government were represented by their
Agent, Mr. K. de Vey Mestdagh, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. On 3 September 1991 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."
4. On 7 January 1992 the Commission referred the application to
its Second Chamber.
5. The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had
reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 7 July 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
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. WEITZEL
J.C. SOYER
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 is a Dutch citizen, born in 1961 and is
residing in Veldhoven, the Netherlands. He is a sergeant in the
Royal Netherlands Armed Forces.
7. On 25 September 1987 the applicant was arrested by the
military police on suspicion of having committed incest and
detained on remand. On 1 October 1987 he was brought before the
Regional Court-Martial (Arrondissementskrijgsraad) of Arnhem. The
Court rejected the request by the "Auditeur-Militair" to prolong
the applicant's detention on remand and ordered his release. On
14 December 1987 the charges against the applicant were withdrawn.
8. Following the applicant's request for compensation for the
days he had been detained on remand, the Regional Court-Martial of
Arnhem awarded him 1,000 Dutch guilders, but rejected his complaint
that his detention had been in violation of Article 5 para. 3 of
the Convention. The Military Court of Appeal (Hoog Militair
Gerechtshof) dismissed his appeal on 26 May 1988.
9. The applicant complained before the Commission that there had
been a violation of Article 5 paras. 3 and 5 of the Convention as
following his arrest he was not brought promptly before the
competent judicial authority.
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
discuss with them the possibilities of reaching a friendly
settlement.
12. By letter of 5 November 1991 the respondent Government
informed the Commission of their willingness to write a letter to
the applicant stating that he was not brought promptly before a
judicial officer after his arrest and that the authorities had thus
violated Article 5 para. 3 of the Convention. Following the
applicant's reply and a proposal by the Commission, the Government,
in a further letter of 6 February 1992, informed the Commission
that they were also willing to pay the applicant's costs for legal
representation with which the applicant had been duly charged and
which had not been covered by any national or international legal
aid scheme. The Government were also willing to pay an amount of
300 Dutch guilders to the applicant for non-pecuniary damage.
13. By letter of 3 June 1992 the applicant's lawyer informed the
Commission that the applicant accepted the Government's proposals.
14. At its session of 7 July 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