CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 4 juillet 1995

.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. 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)