[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Gocer v Netherlands - 51392/99 [2010] ECHR 1876 (15 September 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1876.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1876

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

Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)144¹

Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights

Göçer against the Netherlands

Beumer against the Netherlands

(Application No. 51392/99, judgment of 3 October 2002, final on 21 May 2003)

(Application No. 48086/99, judgment of 29 July 2003, final on 29 October 2003)

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 judgments in these cases, transmitted by the Court to the Committee once they had become final;

Recalling that the violations of the Convention found by the Court in these cases concern the excessive length of proceedings concerning the applicants’ social security benefits (violations of Article 6, paragraph 1) (see details in Appendix);

Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgments;

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 applicants 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 these cases and

DECIDES to close the examination of these cases.

Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2010)144

Information about the measures to comply with the judgments in the cases of

Göçer and Beumer against the Netherlands

Introductory case summary

These cases concern the excessive length of judicial proceedings relating to social security benefits (violation of Article 6§1).

In the case of Göçer, the proceedings began on 30/11/1993 before The Hague Regional Court and ended on 16/12/1998 when the Central Appeals Tribunal rejected the applicant’s appeal, having thus lasted 5 years and 16 days. The Court identified two substantial periods of inactivity in the proceedings at issue. While the first period remained unexplained, the second one was found to be caused by the heavy workload of the Central Appeals Tribunal.

In the case of Beumer, the proceedings began on 16/08/1994 and ended on 21/07/1999, having thus lasted 4 years and 11 months before three levels of jurisdiction. The Court acknowledged the complexity of the case but found that the respondent government was responsible for the repeated adjournments of the proceedings before the Utrecht Regional Court.

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

a) Details of just satisfaction

In the case of Göçer:

In the case of Beumer:

b) Individual measures

As the proceedings in these cases are closed, no other individual measure, apart from the payment of just satisfaction, was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.

II. General measures

The violations in these cases appear to be isolated incidents and do not indicate any systemic problem. In these circumstances, no general measures appear necessary.

III. Conclusions of the respondent state

The government considers that no individual measure is required, apart from the payment of the just satisfaction and that the circumstances of the cases do not require the adoption of specific general measures. The Netherlands have thus complied with their obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.