Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") and the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court * , as a Chamber composed of the following judges:
1.�� The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights ("the Commission") on 15 March 1983, within the period of three months laid down by Articles 32 � 1 and 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. The case originated in three applications (nos. 9362/81, 9363/81 and 9387/81) against the Kingdom of the Netherlands lodged with the Commission in 1981 by Mr. Jan Christian Martinus van der Sluijs, Mr. Harm Pieter Zuiderveld and Mr. Albertus Laurentius Klappe, Dutch nationals, under Article 25 (art. 25).
2.�� The Commission�s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby the Kingdom of the Netherlands recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The purpose of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 5 � 3 (art. 5-3) of the Convention.
3.�� In response to the inquiry made in accordance with Rule 33 � 3 (d) of the Rules of Court, the applicants stated that they wished to participate in the proceedings pending before the Court and designated the lawyer who would represent them (Rule 30).
6.�� On 26 September, the Government filed a statement raising various preliminary objections pursuant to Rule 47 and, for the rest, waived their right to present a memorial. By letter received on 10 November, the Deputy Secretary to the Commission informed the Registrar that the Delegate would be replying to these objections in his submissions at the hearings.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.