CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 13 septembre 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. 23073/93                                   L.I.B.                                   against                               the Netherlands                            REPORT OF THE COMMISSION                       (adopted on 13 September 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 L.I.B. against the Netherlands on 8 September 1993.   It was registered on 13 December 1993 under file No. 23073/93.         The applicant was represented by Mr. G. Spong, a lawyer practising in The Hague, 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 11 January 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 13 September 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                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY                  P. LORENZEN                                   PART I                           STATEMENT OF THE FACTS   4.     The applicant is a Dutch citizen, born in 1941, and resident in Aruba.   5.     On 22 December 1988 the applicant was arrested and subsequently detained on remand on suspicion of having committed drug offences.   6.      On 30 March 1990 the Court of First Instance (Gerecht in eerste aanleg) of Aruba convicted the applicant and sentenced him to nine years' imprisonment.   7.     The judgment of the Court of First Instance was quashed on 22 October 1991 by the Joint Court of Appeal of the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba (Gemeenschappelijk Hof van Justitie van de Nederlandse Antillen en Aruba), which convicted the applicant and sentenced him to   seven years' imprisonment.   8.     On 28 October 1991 the applicant filed an appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad). On 9 November 1992 the applicant's case- file was received by the Registry of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court started its examination on 5 January 1993 and rejected the appeal in cassation on 9 March 1993.   9.     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 that certain unreasonable delays had occurred in the proceedings against him.                                   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.    Between 10 March 1995 and 4 July 1995 the parties exchanged various letters relating, inter alia, to the effort to reach a friendly settlement and, with a view to such a settlement, considered a proposal put forward by the Commission (Second Chamber).   13.    The applicant's representative, by letter of 3 July 1995, and the Government, by letter of 4 July 1995, stated their willingness to accept a friendly settlement on the following terms:         -     the payment by the Netherlands Government to the       applicant of an amount of 3.000,- Dutch guilders for       compensation of non-pecuniary damages; and         -     the payment by the Netherlands Government to the       applicant of an amount of 2.000,- Dutch guilders for the       applicant's legal costs incurred in the proceedings before       the Commission insofar as these costs have not been covered       by any legal aid scheme.   14.    At its session on 13 September 1995, the Commission (Second Chamber) 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)