Onder 5.4 College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven 7 september 2023

‘(…) the time-limit of only one week (…) is rather short, having regard to the fact that the applicant was detained. However, the Court also notes that this time-limit does not concern the motivation of the appeal which is subject to another time-limit (…). For lodging an appeal on points of law a single written line suffices. (…) In this connection the Court observes that the applicant, at the time in question, was particularly vulnerable as he was deprived of his liberty in a psychiatric hospital and was considered to be a person of unsound mind who needed psychiatric treatment, and therefore had not been responsible for the actions with which he was charged. (…) In the Court’s opinion, the above-mentioned circumstances may not necessarily fall under the responsibility of the respondent State. However, they reduce the amount of negligence attributable to the mentally-ill applicant who was facing not only a complicated legal and difficult personal situation, confinement to a psychiatric hospital and practical delivery problems, but in addition was no longer actively aided by counsel. In the light of the accumulation of extraordinary factors affecting the lodging of the applicant’s appeal and bearing in mind that the applicant in instant case had already announced in the courtroom that he wished to appeal, the Court takes the view that the Federal Court of Justice’s decision to refuse reinstatement of the proceedings was not proportionate to the purpose of the procedural limitation at issue. To hold otherwise would be too formalistic and contrary to the principle of practical and effective application of the Convention (…).’

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/4acbd6ffd28565b146eb823cbe0423d7eaf24c8c718bc40420043a00e1036b1b | shasum -a 256