CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 7 juillet 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. 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)