EUROPEAN COMMISSION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
SECOND CHAMBER
Application No. 21204/93
Adrianus Johannes VERBAANT
against
the Netherlands
REPORT OF THE COMMISSION
(adopted on 4 July 1995)
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 A.J. Verbaant against the
Netherlands on 6 January 1993. It was registered on 21 January 1993
under file No. 21204/93.
The applicant was represented by Ms. T. Spronken, a lawyer
practising in Maastricht, the Netherlands.
The Government of the Netherlands were represented by their
Agent, Mr. K. de Vey Mestdagh, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
2. On 18 May 1995 the Commission (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."
3. The Commission (Second Chamber) found that the parties had
reached a friendly settlement of the case and on 4 July 1995 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:
Mr. H. DANELIUS, President
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. G. JÖRUNDSSON
S. TRECHSEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
F. MARTINEZ
L. LOUCAIDES
J.-C. GEUS
M.A. NOWICKI
I. CABRAL BARRETO
J. MUCHA
D. SVÁBY
PART I
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
4. The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1952 and at present
serving a prison sentence.
5. On 16 August 1989, the applicant was arrested and subsequently
detained on remand on suspicion of having committed drugs offences.
6. On 18 January 1990, the Regional Court (Arrondissementsrechtbank)
of 's-Hertogenbosch convicted the applicant and sentenced him to three
years' imprisonment, less the time spent in detention on remand.
7. The judgment of the Regional Court was quashed on 16 November
1990 by the Court of Appeal (Gerechtshof) of 's-Hertogenbosch, which
convicted the applicant and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment,
less the time spent in detention on remand. The applicant subsequently
filed an appeal in cassation with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad).
8. Pending his appeal in cassation and after having spent 18 months
in detention on remand the applicant was released on 5 February 1991
as a result of a procedural mistake.
9. On 4 October 1991, the Court of Appeal's Registrar (griffier)
sent the case-file to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court started its
examination of the case on 24 March 1992 and rejected the appeal in
cassation on 8 July 1992.
10. Before the Commission the applicant complained under Article 6
para. 1 of the Convention that the criminal charges against him were
not determined within a reasonable time, in particular as a period of
more than sixteen months elapsed between the judgment of the Court of
Appeal and the examination of his appeal in cassation by the Supreme
Court.
PART II
SOLUTION REACHED
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. By letter dated 16 June 1995 the applicant proposed terms for a
friendly settlement. By letter of 28 June 1995 the applicant informed
the Commission that he had reached a friendly settlement with the
Government. By letter of 28 June 1995 the Government confirmed that a
friendly settlement of the case had been reached on the following
terms:
"When the applicant has completed the sentence which he is now
serving (ie. on 17 July next) he will be released. Subsequently,
probably on 24 July 1995, he will be summoned to report to the
semi-open detention centre "Groot Bankenbosch" to serve the last
22 months of his sentence relating to the procedure that is the
subject of the application.
Of course for applicant the normal rules and regulations
pertaining to semi-open detention centres will apply. Should
applicant violate the house rules the Netherlands Government
reserves the right to transfer applicant back to a stricter
regime in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations."
14. At its session on 4 July 1995, the Commission noted that the
parties had reached an agreement regarding the terms of a settlement.
It further considered, 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.
15. For these reasons, the Commission adopted the present Report.
Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(M.-T. SCHOEPFER) (H. DANELIUS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy