CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;ENG — 20 avril 1977

.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 }  The Committee of Ministers,   Having regard to Article 54 (art. 54) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the convention");   Having regard to the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the "case of Engel and others" delivered on 8 June 1976 and 23 November 1976 and transmitted on the same dates to the Committee of Ministers;   Recalling that the European Commission of Human Rights had been seized in 1971, under Article 25 (art. 25) of the convention, by five applications lodged against the Kingdom of the Netherlands by five Dutch nationals;   Recalling that the case had been brought before the European Court of Human Rights on 8 October 1974 by the European Commission of Human Rights and on 17 December 1974 by the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the convention;   Whereas in its judgment of 8 June 1976 the Court:   1.    Holds, unanimously, that Article 5 (art. 5) was not applicable to the light arrest of two applicants;   2.    Holds, by twelve votes to one, that it was also not applicable to the aggravated arrest of one applicant or to the interim aggravated arrest of two other applicants;   3.    Holds, by eleven votes to two, that the committal of two applicants to a disciplinary unit did not violate Article 5 paragraph 1 (art. 5-1);   4.    Holds, by nine votes to four, that the whole period of one applicant's provisional strict arrest violated Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), since no justification is to be found for it in any sub-paragraph of this provision;   5.    Holds, by ten votes to three, that apart from that, it violated Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), in so far as it exceeded the period of twenty-four hours stipulated by Article 45 of the Netherlands Military Discipline Act of 27 April 1903;   6.    Holds, unanimously, that the committal of two applicants to a disciplinary unit and one applicant's provisional arrest did not violate Articles 5, paragraph 1, and 14 taken together (art. 14+5-1);   7.    Holds, by twelve votes to one, that there has been no breach of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), as regards the committal of two applicants to a disciplinary unit;   8.    Holds, by eleven votes to two, that Article 6 (art. 6) was not applicable to one applicant on the ground of the words "criminal charge";   9.    Holds, unanimously, that it was also not applicable to this applicant on the ground of the words "civil rights and obligations";   10.   Holds, unanimously, that neither was it applicable to another applicant;   11.   Holds, by eleven votes to two, that there was a breach of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), in the case of three applicants in so far as hearings before the Supreme Military Court took place in camera;   12.   Holds, unanimously, that there was no breach of Article 6, paragraph 2 (art. 6-2), in the case of two applicants;   13.   Holds, unanimously, that there was no breach of Article 6, paragraph 3 (b) (art. 6-3-b), in the case of three applicants;   14.   Holds, by nine votes to four, that there was no breach of Article 6, paragraph 3 (c) (art. 6-3-c), in the case of these three applicants;   15.   Holds, by nine votes to four, that there was no breach of Article 6, paragraph 3 (d) (art. 6-3-d), in the case of one applicant;   16.   Holds, by twelve votes to one, that there was no breach of Article 6, paragraph 3 (d) (art. 6-3-d), in the case of two applicants;   17.   Holds, unanimously, that there was no breach of Articles 6 and 14 (art. 14+6) taken together in the case of three applicants;   18.   Holds, unanimously, that there is no need to rule on the complaint based by two applicants on the alleged violation of Articles 6 and 18 (art. 18+6) taken together;   19.   Holds, unanimously, that there was no breach of Article 10 (art. 10) taken alone or together with Articles 14 (art. 14+10), 17 (art. 17+10) or 18 (art. 18+10) in the case of two applicants;   20.   Holds, unanimously, that there was no breach of Article 11 (art. 11) in the case of two applicants;   21.   Holds, unanimously, that the question of the application of Article 50 (art. 50) does not arise in the case of one applicant or for those of the complaints of four other applicants which the Court has not herein retained;   22.   Holds, by twelve votes to one, that the question is not yet ready for decision as regards the breaches found in the case of one applicant and in the case of three other applicants;   Whereas in its judgment of 23 November 1976 relating to the application of Article 50 (art. 50) of the convention, the Court holds unanimously that the Kingdom of the Netherlands is to pay to one applicant the sum of one hundred Dutch guilders; and that item 11 of the operative provisions of its judgment of 8 June 1976 amounts for three applicants to adequate satisfaction under Article 50 (art. 50);   Having regard to the "Rules concerning the application of Article 54 (art. 54) of the convention";   Having invited the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to inform it of the measures which it had taken in consequence of the judgments, having regard to its obligation under Article 53 (art. 53) of the convention to abide by the judgments;   Whereas during the examination of this case by the Committee of Ministers, the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands informed the Committee of the measures taken in consequence of the judgments, which information appears in the appendix to this resolution;   Having taken note of this information and having satisfied itself that this government has awarded the just satisfaction provided for in the judgments of the Court of 23 November 1976,   Declares that it has exercised its function under Article 54 (art. 54) of the convention in this case.   Appendix to Resolution (77) 10   Information provided by the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands during the examination of the case of "Engel and others" before the Committee of Ministers   In its judgment of 8 June 1976 in the case of Engel and others, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that in the case of one applicant, his provisional strict arrest constituted a violation of Article 5, paragraph 1 (art. 5-1), of the convention, and that in the case of three other applicants, there had been violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 (art. 6-1), of the convention owing to the fact that the Supreme Military Court had heard their case in closed session.   These cases were tried in the Netherlands during 1970 and 1971.   As the Court found in paragraphs 13, 24, 63 and 64 of its judgment, following the amendment of 1 November 1974, Netherlands military disciplinary law no longer makes provision for penalties which, according to the criteria indicated by the Court itself, can be considered as constituting a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 (art. 5), or for other penalties such that the procedure under which they are imposed can be regarded as criminal proceedings according to the Court's interpretation of this term.   Provisional arrest, strict arrest and committal to a disciplinary unit were abolished by this amendment.   Consequently, violations of Articles 5 and 6 (art. 5, art. 6) of the convention of the kind found by the Court cannot occur under the legislation currently in force.   The Netherlands Government therefore considers it unnecessary to take any other legislative measures.   In a letter to all the Ministers of the government, the Minister of Justice has drawn his colleagues' attention to the terms of the Court's judgment and has urged them to take account of it when elaborating any new regulations on matters of discipline.   In accordance with the judgment of the Court of 23 November 1976 relating to the application of Article 50 (art. 50) of the European Convention in the case in question, the sum of 100 Netherlands florins was paid to the applicant's lawyer.