CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 22 mai 1992

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        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)