BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Ronald Michael ROOVERS v the Netherlands - 22523/08 [2010] ECHR 918 (18 May 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/918.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 918 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
22523/08
by Ronald Michael ROOVERS
against the Netherlands
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep
Casadevall, President,
Elisabet
Fura,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Alvina
Gyulumyan,
Egbert
Myjer,
Luis
López Guerra, judges,
and
Santiago Quesada, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 May 2008,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Ronald Michael Roovers, is a Netherlands national who was born in 1958 and lives in Oosterhout. He was represented before the Court by Ms S. Boersma, a lawyer practising in Rotterdam. The Netherlands Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr R. Böcker, of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
3. The applicant was detained on remand (voorlopige hechtenis).
On 8 November 2007 a hearing took place before the Regional Court (rechtbank) of Rotterdam, sitting in Arnhem, at which it was decided, among other things, to adjourn the case. The applicant asked for his detention on remand to be terminated, or in the alternative suspended. This was refused.
The following day, 9 November 2007, the applicant appealed against the decision not to terminate his detention on remand.
A new hearing took place before the Regional Court of Rotterdam, sitting in Arnhem, at which another adjournment of the case was ordered. The applicant again asked for his detention on remand to be terminated or in the alternative suspended. He was met with a refusal in the following terms:
“As to the defence argument that the fact that the Court of Appeal has, until this day, not given any decision on the appeal lodged against the decision of the Regional Court concerning the detention on remand given at its hearing of 8 November 2007, the Regional Court considers that whatever may have gone wrong has happened outside the Regional Court's cognisance (buiten de waarneming van de rechtbank heeft plaatsgevonden) and that it is not for the Regional Court to attach any consequences to it at this point.”
On 27 February 2008 the appeal lodged on 9 November 2007 was heard by the Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) of The Hague, sitting in Arnhem. It dismissed the appeal in the following terms:
“During today's chambers hearing (raadkamer) counsel has argued that in view of the long lapse of time between the introduction of the appeal and the hearing the detention on remand should be lifted.
The Court of Appeal considers on this point that from the moment when the appeal was introduced (9 November 2007) until the hearing of the appeal (initially set for 20 February but eventually held on 27 February 2008 following a request for a postponement made by the defence) a considerable time has elapsed, apparently as a result of administrative errors (ambtelijke misslagen). This lapse of time must be deemed undesirably long, which means that the appeal has not been decided by the Court of Appeal as soon as possible as Article 71 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering) lays down. In addition, it cannot be said that the decision on appeal has been given 'speedily' within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
This lapse does not, however, have to lead to the lifting of the accused's detention on remand, since in accordance with the purport of the legal provisions governing detention on remand the further duration of the accused's detention on remand has been under the review of the trial court and has thus been reviewed within the applicable time-limit after the decision appealed against.”
The applicant was released on 11 April 2008, after having spent thirteen months in detention on remand.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice Only if needed
4. Either following initial periods of detention on remand (ordered by the investigating judge (rechter-commissaris)) or during the trial, the Regional Court may order an accused's extended detention on remand (gevangenhouding) (Article 65 §§ 1 and 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Such an order is valid for up to ninety days at a time (Article 66 § 1).
An appeal against an order for extended detention on remand lies to the Court of Appeal; the time-limit is three days (Article 71 § 1). The Court of Appeal shall decide as soon as possible; the accused shall be given the opportunity to be heard (Article 71 § 4).
COMPLAINTS
5. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 and 6 of the Convention that his appeal against the prolongation of his extended detention on remand was not heard “speedily”.
He also complained that the Court of Appeal's reasoning – referring to the Regional Court's periodic review, which had occurred in the meantime – did not sit well with the Regional Court's refusal to entertain any arguments based on the delay, so that he was deprived of an effective appeal by an independent jurisdictional body.
Finally, he argued that these violations ought to have resulted in an order for his release.
THE LAW
6. On 9 April 2010 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Roeland Böcker, Agent for the Government of the Netherlands, declare that the Government of the Netherlands offer to pay to Mr Ronald Michael Roovers, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, ex gratia 2,000 euros, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
The sum of this will be free of any taxes that may be applicable and payable within six weeks from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said period of six weeks, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
7. On 16 March 2010 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Susanne Boersma, advocate, note that the Government of the Netherlands are prepared to pay to Mr Ronald Michael Roovers, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, ex gratia 2,000 euros, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
The sum of this will be free of any taxes that may be applicable and payable within six weeks from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned six weeks until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Having consulted my client, I would inform you that he accepts the proposal and waives any further claims against the Netherlands in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. He declares that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
8. The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall
Registrar President