CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;SCREENINGPANEL;ENG — 11 avril 1997

.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 }          In the case of Menckeberg v. the Netherlands (1),           The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights, constituted in accordance with Article 48 para. 2 (art. 48-2) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B (2), _______________ Notes by the Registrar   1.   The case is numbered 3/1997/787/988.   The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number).   The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.   2.   Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply to all cases concerning the States bound by Protocol No. 9 (P9). ________________           Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 21 February 1997, and composed of the following judges:           Mr C. Russo, Chairman,         Mr A. Spielmann,         Mr P. van Dijk,   and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,           Having regard to the application against the Kingdom of the Netherlands lodged with the Court on 8 January 1997 by a Netherlands national, Mr Guno Vincentius Menckeberg, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 of the Convention (art. 32-1, art. 47);           Whereas the Netherlands has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention (art. 46)) and ratified Protocol No. 9 to the Convention (P9), Article 5 (P9-5) of which amends Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) so as to enable a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") to refer the case to the Court;           Noting that the present case has not been referred to the Court by either the Government of the respondent State or the Commission under Article 48 para. 1 (a) or (d) of the Convention (art. 48-1-a, art. 48-1-d);           Having regard to the Commission's report of 16 October 1996 on the application (no. 25514/94) lodged with the Commission by Mr Menckeberg on 6 October 1994;           Whereas the applicant, who was detained in connection with another criminal case at the relevant time, complained of the failure on the part of the judicial authorities to notify him in person of the date of the hearing of the appeal in the criminal case against him, to make sufficient efforts to establish his whereabouts and adjourn the hearing, and to allow his counsel to conduct the defence in his absence, and alleged a breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention (art. 6-1), under which "In the determination ... of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal ...", and of Article 6 para. 3 (art. 6-3), under which "Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: ... (c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing...; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him...";           Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of his application, as required by Rule 34 para. 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, stated that he sought a decision by the Court holding that his rights under Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (c) and (d) of the Convention (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c, art. 6-3-d) had been violated;           Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention (art. 48) and Rule 34 paras. 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,   1.       Finds that           (a)   the case raises no serious question affecting the              interpretation or application of the Convention, as the              Court has already established case-law on the relevant              requirements of Article 6 paras. 1 and 3 (c) and (d) of              the Convention (art. 6-1, art. 6-3-c, art. 6-3-d); and           (b)   the case does not, for any other reason, warrant              consideration by the Court, as, in the event of a finding              that there has been a breach of the Convention, the              Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe can award              the applicant just satisfaction, having regard to any              proposals made by the Commission;   2.       Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be         considered by the Court.           Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 11 April 1997 pursuant to Rule 34 para. 4 of Rules of Court B.   Signed: Carlo RUSSO         Chairman   Signed: Herbert PETZOLD         Registrar