Application No. 11294/84
                      by E.B.
                      against the Netherlands

        The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private
on 7 October 1987 the following members being present:

              MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
                  S. TRECHSEL
                  F. ERMACORA
                  M.A. TRIANTAFYLLIDES
                  E. BUSUTTIL
                  A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
                  A. WEITZEL
                  H.G. SCHERMERS
                  H. DANELIUS
                  G. BATLINER
                  H. VANDENBERGHE
             Mrs.  G.H. THUNE
             Sir  Basil HALL
             Mr.  F. MARTINEZ
             Mrs.  J. LIDDY

             Mr.  H.C. KRÜGER Secretary to the Commission

        Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

        Having regard to the application introduced on
5 November 1984 by E.B. against the Netherlands and
registered on 10 December 1984 under file N° 11294/84;

        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of
the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;

        Having regard to the decision of the Commission of 18 July 1986
to communicate the application to the respondent Government;

        Having regard to the written observations of the Government;

        Having deliberated;

        Decides as follows:


        The facts of the case as they have been submitted by the
applicant may be summarised as follows:

        The applicant is a Dutch citizen born in 1964 and at present
residing at V., the Netherlands.  In the proceedings before the
Commission she is represented by Mr.  L. Vellerman, a lawyer practising
at Amsterdam.

        It appears that the applicant, who at the relevant time was
employed with a cleaning company, received sickness benefits on the
basis of the Health Insurance Act 1913 (Ziektewet) from
12 October 1982 until 6 June 1983.

        On 6 June 1983, the Occupational Association for Retail,
Craftsmen and Housewives (Bedrijfsvereniging von Detailhandel,
Ambachten en Huisvrouwen) of Utrecht decided that the applicant was
no longer entitled to sickness benefits since she could no longer be
considered unfit for work.

        The applicant, on 30 June 1983, appealed against this decision
to the Appeals Board (Raad van Beroep) of Amsterdam since she
considered that she was still prevented from working because of

        On 16 December 1983, the President of the Appeals Board
declared the applicant's appeal ill-founded in accordance with the
advice of two permanent medical experts consulted by him in accordance
with Section 135 of the Appeals Act (Beroepswet).

        The applicant thereupon filed an objection (verzet) against
this decision, claiming that she had been denied a fair hearing,
contrary to the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.

        However, on 11 April 1984, the Appeals Board declared the
applicant's objection inadmissible, since none of the grounds set out
in Section 142 para. 1 of the Appeals Act applied.

        Under this provision no appeal is possible unless:

-       the permanent medical expert had already dealt with the case
        in another capacity;

-       the permanent medical expert failed to consult both sides and
        to examine the person concerned as Article 137 of the Act

-       the decision of the President does not concern the dispute;

-       the President has not followed the advice of the permanent
        medical expert.

        On 17 April 1984, the applicant appealed against this decision
to the Central Appeals Board (Centrale Raad van Beroep) at Utrecht,
but her appeal was declared inadmissible on 16 May 1984, on the sole
ground that Section 142 para. 1 of the Appeals Act provides that
decisions to declare an objection inadmissible are not subject to any


        The applicant complains that she did not have a fair trial
before an independent and impartial tribunal concerning her claim
under the Health Insurance Act.  She contends that the President of
the Appeals Board determined her civil rights without hearing her and
on the basis of reports submitted by the permanent medical experts of
the Appeals Board.

        She also claims that she had no further possibility of
having her civil rights determined after a hearing before an
independent and impartial tribunal.

        The applicant has invoked Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.


        The application was introduced on 5 November 1984 and
registered on 10 December 1984.

        In view of the similarity of the issues the Commission
adjourned its examination of the case pending the judgment of the
Court in the Feldbrugge case (Judgment of 29 May 1986).

        On 18 July 1986 the Commission decided to bring the
application to the notice of the respondent Government and to invite
them to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of
the application in the light of the Court's judgment in the Feldbrugge

        The Government's observations reached the Secretariat on
16 October 1986 and were sent to the applicant's lawyer, who was
invited to send any written observations in reply before 15 December 1986.

        Since no reply was received the Secretariat sent a reminder on
19 February 1987, drawing the applicant's attention to Rule 44 para. 1
of the Commission's Rules of Procedure which provides, inter alia,
that the Commission may strike a case out of its list of cases where
the circumstances, in particular the applicant's failure to observe
time-limits set, lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not
intend to pursue the application.

        Having received no reply, the Secretariat sent the applicant a
letter by registered post on 10 July 1987 requesting her to inform the
Secretariat whether she intended to pursue the application and warning
her of the consequence that the application would be struck off the
list should no answer be received.

        The Secretariat again received no reply.


        The Commission considers that the applicant has lost interest
in pursuing her application and sees no reason relating to the general
interest to continue an examination of the application since similar
issues have already been examined by the Commission and the European
Court of Human Rights in the Feldbrugge case (Feldbrugge v.
the Netherlands, Comm.  Report 9.5.84, Eur.  Court H.R., judgment of
29 May 1986, Series A No. 99).

        Having regard to Rule 44 para. 1 (b) of its Rules of
Procedure, the Commission


Secretary to the Commission               President of the Commission

    (H.C. KRÜGER)                               (C.A. NØRGAARD)