Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19741219-675374
Timestamp: 2016-12-11 08:34:45+00:00

Document:
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; Partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 6753/74Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1974-12-19;6753.74 Parties : Demandeurs : X. et Y.Défendeurs : PAYS-BASTexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 6753/74 X . and Y . v/the NETHERLANDS X . et Y . c/PAYS-BA S DECISION of 19 December 1974 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 19 dÃ©cembre 1974 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requPt e
Article 8 of the Convention : Whether the relationshi/is between minors are protected by the right to respect for private life (unresolved) . A minor child's forced return to her parents' residence, constitutes, in the circumstances of the case, an exercise of respect for the lffe of her family and a measure necessa ry for the protection of her health and morals within the meaning of paragraph 2 of this provision : This provision relates exclusiveN to a remedy in respect o f .Article13ofhCnvti
a violation of one of the rights and freedoms set forth in the other provisions of the Convention. Article 1, paragraph 2 of Protocol No . 1 : The impÃ´sition of a iine is covered by this provision . Article 8 de la Convention : Les relations entre deux mineurs sont-elles protÃ©gÃ©es par le droit Ã la vie privÃ©e ? Iquestion non rÃ©soluel . L'obltgation faite Ã une mineure de retourner au domicile de ses parents constitue en l'espÃ©ce une mesure destinÃ©e Ã assurer le respect de la vie de sa famille et nÃ©cessaire Ã la protection de sa santÃ© et de sa morale au sens du paragraphe 2 de cet article . Article 13 de la Convention : Cet article ne garantit un recours effectif qu'en cas de violation de l'un des droits et libertÃ©s reconnus dans les autres articles de la Convention.
Article 1â¢â¢, paragraphe 2 du Protocole additionnel : L'imposition d'une amende est autorisÃ©e par cette disposition .
(franÃ§ais : voir p . 120 )
The first applicant, a girl aged 14 at the time, had run away from home with her boy-friend. She was given some help by the second applicant, as a member of an "alternative' office for social assistance. In the course of a police search, the second applicant refused to cooperate with the authorities but promised to t ry to convince the first applicant and her friend to contact their respective parents. Both young persons finalty repo rted to the police and were subsequentN taken back to their parents . The second applicant was later convicted for withholding a wanted minor from the police . He was sentenced to a fine .
THE LA W 1.
In regard to the complaints made by the first applican t
1 . The Commission first considered the applicant's main complaint under Art . 8 that the authorities interfered with her private life in that they required her to live with her parents and thus gave more weight to her parents' right to family life than to her own right to private life .
Art . 8(1 ) of the Convention secures to everyone the right to respect for his or her private life . But, under para . 2 of this Article, a public authority may interfere with the exercise of this right so far as it is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society for th protection of health and morals . As a general proposition, and in
the absence of any special circumstances, the obligation of children to reside with their parents and to be otherwise subjected to a particular control is necessary for the protection of children's health and morals, although it might constitute, from a particular child's point of view, an interference with his or her own private life . In the present case the applicant, who was only 14 years of age at the time, had run away from home apparently because her parents objected to her boyfriend . Together with her boyfriend she had stayed in hiding for a few days, and, having been worried about the police sending for them, both young persons had finally reported to the police and subsequently been taken back to their respective parents . Even assuming that the wish of the applicant to be with her boyfriend, or her staying with him for a few days, could constitute private life, the Commission considers that any interference by reason of her being forced to return to her parents, as provided for in the relevant Netherlands legislation and as enforced by the authorities, was both an exercise of respect for the life of her family and also necessary for the prdtection of her health and morals within the meaning of Art . 8(2) of the Convention .
An examination of this complaint as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not therefore disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and in particular in the above Article . It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art . 27 121 of the Convention . 2 . The applicant has further complained in this connection that the Netherlands laws requiring her to live with her parents, and the consequent action by the authorities requiring her to return to her parents' home, are in breach of Ans . 3 . 5, 6, 14, 17 and 18 of the Convention and of Art . 2 of Protocol No . 1 . However, the Commission does not find that the applicant has in any way substantiated such allegations and an examination of the case as it has been submitted, including an examination made ex officio does not disclose any appearance of a violation of any of the rights and freedoms set out in Arts . 3, 5, 6 or 14, or any misuse of power by the authorities .
It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art . 27 of the Convention . 3 . The Commission then considered the applicant's complaint that the Netherlands Government was responsible for a breach of Art . 13 of the Convention in that it had failed to provide an effective remedy before a national authority for the alleged breaches of the Convention .
Here the Commission recalls that Art . 13 relates exclusively to a remedy in respect of a violation of one of the rights and freedoms set forth in the other provisions of the Convention (cf . the Commission's decisions on the admissibility of applications Nos . 3325/67, m .i ., Yearbook, Vol . X, p . 528, Collection of Decisions 34, 48 and 4607/70, Collection of Decisions 37, inc . 146) . In the present case the Commission has not found any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms invoked by her and, therefore, there is no basis in the present case for the application of An . 13 . The Commission decides that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art . 27 of the Convention . 4 . Insofar as the applicant complains of a violation of Art . 2 (1) of Protocol No . 4, the Commission observes that the Netherlands Government have not ratified this Protocol . The Commission has therefore no competence ratione personae to deal with this complaint .
In regard to the complaints made by the second applicant The second applicant complains, on the one hand, that he has been himself a victim as a result of those breaches of the Convention which were alleged to have been committed in relation to the first applicant . On the other hand, he complains that he himself has been wrongly convicted and sentenced and that in this respect he has fu rt her been the object of breaches of the Convention .
1 . As to his first complaint, the Commission has not found any breaches of the Convention in respect of the first applicant and consequently the second applicant cannot have become a victim, even indirectly, within the meaning of Art . 25 111 of the Convention . It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Art . 27 121 of the Convention . 2 . The applicant has then complained that it is contrary to his moral conviciions and therefore inhuman treatment that he had not been allowed to assist a minor in distress . This in his opinion constitutes a violation of Art . 9 by itself and also in conjunction with Art . 3 of the Convention . However, the Commission considers that this complaint cannot be regarded as inhuman treatment within the meaning of An . 3 (cf . application No . 4771/71, Collection of Decisions, 42, 22, Report of the Commission in the Greek case, Vol . II, Part 1, para . 2) . Insofar as the Netherlands law and practice on the care of minors may have interfered with his own opinion, the interference is justified under Art . 9 121 as a measure of protection of the rights of the first applicant and her family . An examination of this complaint as it has been submitted including an examinatio n made ex officio does not therefore disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the CÃ´nvemion . It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded in the meaning Ã´f Art . 27 (2) of the Convention . 3 . The applicant has finally complained that the imposition of a fine of 250 guilders by the Court of Appeal interfered with his rights guaranteed by Art . 1 of Protocol No . 1 . However, the second paragraph of this provision clearly justified "the payment of . . . penalties" .
An examination of these complaints as they have been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not therefore disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and inparticular in the above Article . It follows that this part of the application is also manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art . 27 (2) of the Convention .
For these reasons, the Ãommissio n DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE . RÃ©sumÃ© des faits Le premier requÃ©rant, une jeune fille Ã¢gÃ©e de 14 ans lors des faits, avait quittÃ© le domicile paternel avec un ami . Durant sa fugue, elle a reÃ§u une certaine aide du second requÃ©rant, membre d'un bureau privÃ© d'assistance sociale. Au cours des recherches policiÃ©res, le second requÃ©rant a refusÃ© de coopÃ©rer Ã©vec les autoritÃ©s mais s'est engagÃ© Ã essayer de convaincre le premier requÃ©rant et son ami d'entrei'en contact avec leurs parents respectifs . Les jeunes gens se sont finalement prÃ©sentÃ©s d'eux-mÃ©mes Ã la police et ont AtA reconduits auprÃ©s de leurs parents . Le second requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© par /a suite Ã payer une amende pour n Ã¢voir pas livrÃ© Ã la police des mineurs recherchÃ©s par celle-ci.
(TRADUCTION ) EN DROIT 1.
Quant aux griefs du premier requÃ©ran t 1 . La Commission a examinÃ© en premier lieu le grief essentiel de la requÃ©rante, fondÃ© sur l'article 8 de la Convention, selon lequel les autoritÃ©s auraient commis une ingÃ©rence dans sa vie privÃ©e en exigeant d'elle qu'elle vive chez ses parents et en donnant ainsi Ã la vie familiale de ses parents le pas sur sa propre vie privÃ©e . L'article 8,4 1, de la Convention garantit Ã toute personne le droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e . Toutefois, aux termes du paragraphe 2 de cette disposition, il peut y avoi r
ingÃ©rence d'une autoritÃ© publique dans l'exercice de ce droit, dans la mesure oÃ¹ cette ingÃ©rence est prÃ©vue par la loi et nÃ©cessaire dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique Ã la protection de la santÃ© et de la morale . En l'absence de circonstances spÃ©ciales, il convient d'admettre en principe que l'obligation faite aux enfants de rÃ©sider avec leurs parents et d'Ã©tre soumis Ã© certaines formes d'un contrÃ´le particulier, est nÃ©cessaire Ã la protection de leur santÃ© et de leur morale . Sans doute une telle obligation peut-elle nÃ©anmoins constituer, Ã l'Ã©gard de tel ou tel enfant, une ingÃ©rence dans sa propre vie privÃ©e . En l'espÃ©ce, la requÃ©rante, 9gÃ©e de 14 ans Ã l'Ã©poque des faits, avait apparemment quittÃ© son domicile parce que ses parents lui refusaient de frÃ©quenter le garÃ§on qu'elle aimait . AprÃ¨s s'Ãªtre cachÃ©s pendant plusieurs jours, la requÃ©rante et son ami s'Ã©taient prÃ©sentÃ©s Ã la police, par peur des recherches entamÃ©es contre eux . Ils furent alors reconduits auprÃ©s de leurs parents respectifs . A supposer que le dÃ©sir de la requÃ©rante d'Ã©tre avec son ami ou de passer quelques jours avec lui puisse relever de sa vie privÃ©e, la Commission considÃ¨re que l'ingÃ©rence constituÃ©e par son renvoi forcÃ© auprÃ©s de ses parents, conforme Ã la loi nÃ©erlandaise et exÃ©cutÃ©e par les autoritÃ©s, Ã©tait une mesure destinÃ©e Ã assurer le respect de la vie de la famille de la requÃ©rante et nÃ©cessaire en outre Ã© la protection de sa santÃ© et de sa morale au sens de l'article 8, Â§ 2, de la Convention . L'examen de ce grief, tel qu'il a Ã©tÃ© soumis ne permet donc de dÃ©celer, mÃªme d'office, aucune apparence de violation des droits et libertÃ©s garantis par la Convention et notamment par la disposition prÃ©citÃ©e .
Il s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, Â§ 2, de la Convention . 2 . La requÃ©rante a Ã©galement soutenu Ã cet Ã©gard que la loi nÃ©erlandaise lui imposant de vivre avec ses parents, ainsi que les mesures prises par les autoritÃ©s en application de celle-ci en vue de son retour au domicile paternel, ont violÃ© les articles 3, 5, 6, 14, 17 et 18 de la Convention ainsi que l'article 2 du Protocole additionnel . La Commission constate toutefois que ces allÃ©gations ne s'appuient pas sur la moindre preuve ou argumentation . L'examen de l'affaire, telle qu'elle a Ã©tÃ© soumise, ne permet donc de dÃ©celer, mÃªme d'office, aucune apparence de violation des droits et libertÃ©s garantis aux articles 3, 5, 6 ou 14 et aucun abus de pouvoir de la part des autoritÃ©s .
Il s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃªte est Ã©galement manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, Â§ 2, de la Convention . 3 . La Commission a ensuite examinÃ© le grief de la requÃ©rante selon lequel le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas serait responsable d'une violation de l'article 13 de la Convention en ce sens qu'il n'aurait pas instaurÃ© un recours effectif devant une instance nationale contre les violations de la Convention dont l'intÃ©ressÃ©e s'est prÃ©tendue victime . La Commission rappelle Ã cet Ã©gard que l'anicle 13 ne garantit un recours effectif qu'en cas de violation de l'un des droits reconnus dans les autres articles de la Convention (cf . les dÃ©cisions de la Commission sur la recevabilitÃ© des requÃªtes NÂ° 3325/67, Ann . Vol . X, p . 528, Rec . 34, p . 48 et NÂ° 4607/70, Rec . 37, p . 146) . La Commission n'ayant constatÃ© aucune apparence de violation de l'un des autres droits invoquÃ©s par la requÃ©rante, il n'existe aucune base permettant d'appliquer, en l'espÃ©ce, l'article 13 de la Convention . La Commission conclut dÃ©s lors que cette partie de la requÃ©te est Ã©galement manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27 de la Convention .
4 . La Commission relÃ©ve que le Gouvernement des Pays-Bas n'a pas ratifiÃ© le Protocole NÂ° 4 . Elle n'est dÃ¨s lors pas compÃ©tente ratione personae pour examiner le grief de la requÃ©rante tirÃ© de l'article 2, Â§ 1, dudit Protocole . Il .
Quant aux griefs du second requÃ©ran t
Le second requÃ©rant prÃ©tend d'une part avoir Ã©tÃ© lui-mÃªme la victime des violation de la Convention prÃ©tendument commises Ã l'Ã©gard du premier requÃ©rant .
D'autre part, il se plaint d'avoir Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© Ã tort et d'avoir subi, de ce fait, certaines autres violations de la Convention . 1 . Quant au premier grief, la Commission n'ayant constatÃ© aucune violation de la Convention Ã l'Ã©gard du premier requÃ©rant, le second requÃ©rant ne peut avoir Ã©tÃ© victime, mÃªme indirecte, au sens de l'article 25, Â§ 1, de la Convention .
Il s'ensuit que cette panie de la requÃ©te est manifestement mal fondÃ©e et doit Ãªtre rejetÃ©e conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 27, Â§ 2 de la Convention . 2 . Le requÃ©rant a soutenu par ailleurs que le refus qui lui a 0tÃ© opposÃ© d'assister un mineur dans le dÃ©sarroi se heurte Ã ses convictions morales et constitue un traitement inhumain . Il estime que l'article 9 s'est trouvÃ© violÃ© de ce fait, tant indÃ©pendamment qu'en relation avec l'article 3 de la Convention . La Commission considÃ©re toutefois que les faits en cause ne sauraient constituer un traitement inhumain au sens de l'article 3 (cf . requÃªte NÂ° 4771/71, Rec . 42, 22 - Rappon de la Commission dans l'Affaire grecque - Vol . II, 1'â¢ Partie, par . 2) . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ la loi et la pratique nÃ©erlandaises concernant la protection des mineurs ont pu entrer en conflit avec l'opinion du requÃ©rant, il s'agissait d'une ingÃ©rence justifiÃ©e par le 4 2 de l'article 9, comme Ã©tant une mesure de protection du premier requÃ©rant et de sa famille . Un examen de ce grief tel qu'il a Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ© ne permet donc de dÃ©celer, mÃªme d'office, aucune apparence de violation des droits et libertÃ©s garantis par la Convention . Il s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, Â§ 2, de la Convention . 3 . Le requÃ©rant a soutenu enfin que l'imposition d'une amende de 250 florins par la cour d'appel constitue une atteinte au respect de ses biens tel qu'il est garanti par l'article 1â¢' du Protocole additionnel .
Le Â« paiement des amendes Â» est cependant clairement justifiÃ© par le paragraphe 2 de cette disposition . Un examen de ce grief tel qu'il a Ã©tÃ© soumis ne permet donc de dÃ©celer, mÃªme d'office, aucune apparence de violation des droits et libertÃ©s garantis par la Convention et notamment la disposition prÃ©citAe . Il s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃªte est Ã©galement manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27 Â§ 2 de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commission DECLARE LA REQUETEIRRECEVABLE .
-122_Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : CommissionDate de la décision : 19/12/1974Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 8
 L'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 27
 l'article 2
 l'article 27
 l'article 13
 l'article 13
 l'article 27
 l'article 2
 l'article 25
 l'article 27
 l'article 9
 l'article 3
 l'article 3
 l'article 9
 l'article 27
 l'article 1
 l'article 27