10.  The applicants, Mr Vincenzo Del Latte and Mr Angelo Del Latte, were born in 1966 and 1967 respectively and live in Volendam, the Netherlands. 11.  On 22 June 1996 the applicants went together to the home of one Y., with whom they had quarrelled in a bar earlier. Finding Y. at home, one of them – apparently Vincenzo Del Latte – fired three shots from a gun in his general direction. 12.  The applicants were arrested on the same day and charged with the attempted murder, or in the alternative, the attempted manslaughter of Y. The applicant Angelo Del Latte was in addition charged, in the further alternative, with aiding and abetting the attempted murder or manslaughter by Vincenzo Del Latte. 13.  The applicants were taken into police custody (inverzekeringstelling) and thereafter kept in detention on remand (voorlopige hechtenis). 14.  A first trial hearing took place before the Haarlem Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) on 30 September 1996. On 14 October 1996 the Regional Court gave an interlocutory judgment remitting the case to the investigating judge (rechter-commissaris) for additional investigations.
A second trial hearing was held on 7 January 1997. 15.  On 9 January 1997 the Regional Court gave judgment acquitting the applicants of all charges. This entailed the applicants' immediate release from detention on remand.
The prosecution appealed. 16.  Following a hearing on 21 November 1997, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal (gerechtshof) gave judgment on 5 December 1997 upholding the Regional Court's acquittal.
Since in the Netherlands no appeal on points of law is possible against an acquittal (Article 430 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering) – hereinafter “CCP”), this brought the criminal proceedings to an end. 17.  Both applicants applied to the Court of Appeal in January 1998, each seeking monetary compensation in an amount of 31,200 Netherlands guilders (NLG) for the time spent in pre-trial detention (Article 89 CCP – see below). 18.  A hearing was held on 24 April 1998. 19.  On 5 June 1998 the Court of Appeal gave decisions dismissing the applicants' claims. Its reasoning, identical in both decisions, was the following (emphasis added):
“The Court of Appeal finds that the file contains sufficient evidence to prove that the applicant together with his brother went to the home of the victim [Y.] in Edam-Volendam and that shots were fired by one of them through [Y.]'s living-room window with a firearm. At that moment [Y.] was in that living-room. However, it has not been established conclusively (onomstotelijk) that the shooting was intended to kill [Y.].
However, in view of the other circumstances as they appear from the file, the actions of the applicant and his brother amounted to threats, within the meaning of Article 285 of the Criminal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht – hereinafter “CC”).
The behaviour of the applicant together with his brother in any case justified that he be taken into police custody and subsequently held in detention on remand.
The Haarlem Regional Court, and also the Court of Appeal, have had to consider the case on the basis of the indictment prepared by the public prosecutor (officier van justitie). This indictment was limited to attempted murder/manslaughter. It did not contain any charge of threatening to commit a crime directed against life.
The Regional Court and the Court of Appeal found insufficient evidence to support the charges contained in the indictment, and the applicant had to be acquitted as a consequence.
In the light of the above, the Court of Appeal's acquittal can be qualified as a 'technical' acquittal, since adding a further alternative charge, as indicated above, would have led to a conviction.
In the circumstances the Court of Appeal finds no reasons in equity to award the applicant any compensation for the police custody and detention on remand.”