EHRM, 08-03-2007, nr. 8196/02

EHRM, 08-03-2007, nr. 8196/02

Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.

Uitspraak 08‑03‑2007

B.M. Zupančič, J. Hedigan, C. Bîrsan, A. Gyulumyan, E. Myjer, David Thór Björgvinsson, I. Ziemele

Partij(en)

JUDGMENT

(Just satisfaction / friendly settlement)

STRASBOURG

8 March 2007

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision

In the case of

Salah

v.

the Netherlands,

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:

Mr B.M. ZUPANČIČ, President,

Mr J. HEDIGAN,

Mr C. BÎRSAN,

Mrs A. GYULUMYAN,

Mr E. MYJER,

Mr DAVID THÓR BJÖRGVINSSON,

Mrs I. ZIEMELE, judges,

and Mr S. NAISMITH, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 15 February 2007,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

Procedure

1

The case originated in an application (no. 8196/02) against the Kingdom of the Netherlands lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the Convention’) by an Algerian national, Khalid Salah (‘the applicant’), on 13 February 2002.

2

In a judgment delivered on 6 July 2006 (‘the principal judgment’), the Court held that the weekly routine strip-searches to which the applicant had been subjected during his stay in the maximum security institution (‘EBI’) were contrary to his rights under Article 3 of the Convention (Salah v. the Netherlands, no. 8196/02, §§ 57–59, ECHR 2006-… (extracts)).

3

Under Article 41 of the Convention the applicant sought just satisfaction of an amount of 5,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 2,856 for legal costs incurred.

4

Since the question of the application of Article 41 of the Convention was not ready for decision, the Court reserved it and invited the Government and the applicant to submit, within three months, their written observations on that issue and, in particular, to notify the Court of any agreement they might reach (ibid., §§ 82 and 88, and point 4 of the operative provisions).

5

On 4 December 2006, the Government submitted the following declaration, dated 22 November 2006 and signed by the parties' representatives:

‘THE UNDERSIGNED:

The Government of the Netherlands, duly represented in this matter by the Agent Ms J. Schukking, (‘the Government’), on the one hand; and

Mr Khalid Salah, duly represented in this matter by his counsel, Ms J. Serrarens (‘the applicant’), on the other:

WHEREAS:

—

the European Court of Human Rights (‘the Court’) ruled on 6 July 2006 in proceedings initiated by the applicant against the Government (Application no. 8196/02) and found that there had been a violation in his case of Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘the Convention’);

—

the Court has not yet reached a decision on the application of Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction);

—

the Government and the applicant (‘the parties’) have held consultations on the issue of just satisfaction;

—

the parties have reached an amicable agreement concerning the amount payable in compensation and that the parties are therefore willing to further determine their legal relationship as defined below and each to accept the following rights and obligations:

AGREE AS FOLLOWS

1.

the Government will pay the applicant the sum of € 2,500 (two thousand five hundred euros). This amount shall be transferred to account number … in the name of … quoting reference …;

2.

the sum of money mentioned in point 1 includes taxes or other duties, if payable, as well as interest and other costs;

3.

after the [account holder] has received the sum of money mentioned in point 1, the applicant has no more claims against the State of the Netherlands in connection with the facts of the application filed by him to the Court, and therefore will not take and/or pursue further legal actions on this matter before national or international courts or instances;

4.

the parties declare that they will waive the option provided for in Article 43, paragraph 1 of the Convention to request that the present case be referred to the Court's Grand Chamber’

6

On 24 January 2007, the applicant's representative informed the Court that the amount stated in this agreement had been paid.

The law

7

Following its principal judgment the Court has been informed that a friendly settlement has been reached between the Government and the applicant with respect to the latter's claims under Article 41 of the Convention.

Having regard to its terms, the Court finds the agreement equitable within the meaning of Rule 75 § 4 of the Rules of Court and that it is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention or its Protocols (Article 37 § 1in fine of the Convention and Rule 62 § 3 of the Rules of Court). Consequently, it takes formal note of the agreement and considers it appropriate to strike the case out of the list pursuant to that provision.

8

Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the court unanimously

1.

Decides to strike the case out of the list;

2.

Takes note of the parties' undertaking not to request a rehearing of the case before the Grand Chamber.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 March 2007, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

Stanley NAISMITH

Deputy Section

Boštjan M. ZUPANČIČ

Registrar President

Deze functie is alleen te gebruiken als je bent ingelogd.