[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Visser v Netherlands - 26668/952 [2010] ECHR 1871 (15 September 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1871.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1871

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)131¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Visser against the Netherlands

(Application No. 26668/95, judgment of 14 February 2002)

The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);

Having regard to the judgment in this case, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once it had become final;

Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns a violation of the right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings against the applicant before the Court of Appeal of The Hague on account of the use as evidence of a statement taken from an anonymous witness (violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3(d)) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken in order to comply with the Netherlands’ obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;

Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),

Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:

- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and

- of general measures, preventing similar violations;

DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)131

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

Visser against the Netherlands

Introductory case summary

The case concerns the violation of the applicant’s right to a fair trial in criminal proceedings, in particular before the Court of Appeal of The Hague which sentenced him in September 1993 to a year’s imprisonment, using as evidence, among others, a statement taken from an anonymous witness (violation of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3d).

The case presents similarities to the case of Van Mechelen and others (judgment of 23/04/1997) against the Netherlands (Resolution DH(99)124).

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

b) Individual measures

No other individual measure, apart from the payment of just satisfaction was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers in the particular circumstances of this case.

II. General measures

General measures have been taken in the context of the case of Van Mechelen and others against the Netherlands, which was closed by the Committee of Ministers (see Resolution ResDH(99)124). Moreover, the Court’s judgment has been sent out to the authorities directly concerned.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that the measures adopted have fully remedied the consequences for the applicant of the violation of the Convention found by the European Court in this case, that these measures will prevent similar violations and that Moldova has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.