CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 12 novembre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s564605FC { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .s4DA7B69C { width:222.81pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 40253/98 by Frederik SALOMONSON and Others against the Netherlands The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 12   November 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   W. Thomassen ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 2 December 1997 and registered on 13   March 1998, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mr Frederik Salomonson, Mr Hans Gerard Smits and Mr   Barend Gerrit Wilmink, are Netherlands nationals. Mr Salomonson was born in 1933 and lives in Kapellen, Belgium. Mr Smits was born in 1933 and lives in Bussum, Netherlands. Mr Wilmink was born in 1931 and lives in Huizen, Netherlands. All three applicants were represented before the Court by Mr O.L.O. de Witt Wijnen, a lawyer practising in Rotterdam. The respondent Government were represented by Mr   R.A.A.   Böcker, Agent. The facts of the case, as originally submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows. The applicants were members of the board of commissioners ( raad van commissarissen ) of Text Lite Holding N.V. (hereinafter “Text Lite”), a limited liability company ( naamloze vennootschap ). Text Lite was declared bankrupt on 30 October 1990. The applicants were subsequently investigated for mismanagement of the company. They were found liable for mismanagement by the Enterprise Section following an investigator’s report. Their Supreme Court appeal on points of law was partly upheld and partly rejected after a public hearing on 4 June 1997. The Procurator-General had submitted an advisory opinion on the case to the Supreme Court beforehand. COMPLAINTS   The applicants originally raised the following complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention: Firstly, that their “civil rights and obligations” had been determined on the basis of a report established following proceedings to which they had not been party. Secondly, that the procedure followed by the investigator in drawing up the report had been unfair to them. Thirdly, that the Enterprise Section had accepted the findings of the investigator without establishing the facts for itself. Fourthly, that they had not had the opportunity to respond to the Procurator-General’s advisory opinion to the Supreme Court. THE LAW By its decision of 19 March 2002, the Court adjourned the examination of the applicants’ complaint that they had not had the opportunity to respond to the Procurator General’s advisory opinion to the Supreme Court. This aspect of the case was communicated to the respondent Government. It declared the application inadmissible for the remainder. By letter of 1 July 2002 the applicant Mr Salomonson informed the Court, without giving reasons, that he no longer wished to pursue the application before the Court. The applicants Mr Smits and Mr Wilmink did likewise by letter of 8 July 2002. The respondent Government did not comment. The Court finds that the applicants do not intend to pursue the application, as provided for in Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, the Court finds no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine , which would require the examination of the application by virtue of that Article. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.   For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   S. DOLLÉ   J.-P. COSTA   Registrar   President