Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19810319-781977-787877
Timestamp: 2017-01-21 13:49:50+00:00

Document:
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche FELL c. ROYAUME-UNI
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; Partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 7819/77;7878/77Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1981-03-19;7819.77 Analyses : (Art. 41) PREJUDICE MORALParties : Demandeurs : FELLDéfendeurs : ROYAUME-UNITexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 7878/7 7 Patrick FELL v/the UNITED KINGDO M Patrick FELL c/ROYAUME-UN I DECISION of 19 March 1981 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 19 mars 1981 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte
Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention : Prison rule according to which a prisoner is not allowed to have confidential consultations with a solicitor. with a view to bring proceedings before an internal administration enquiry has taken place as regard the object of the complaint (internal ventilation rule) . (Complaint declared adrnissible).
Article 8 of the Convention : Restriction on prisoner's correspondence to close relatives (Complaint declared admissible) . Article 8, paeagraph 2 of the Convendon a) A restriction imposed on the [number of] "visits" to a prisoner must be considered as being in accordance with the law. when the rules relied on authorise restrictions on "communicattons".
b) Restriction on the nurnber of persons who may visit a high security prisoner : interference considered necessary in the present case for the prevention of disorder and crime. Article 13 of the Conventlon, In cotÃ§)unction with Attlclea 6 and 8 of the Convention : Alleged absence of effective renredy against restrictions on a prisoner's correspondence and his access to court (Complaint declared adniissible) . Article 26 of the Convention : Non exhaustion of domestic remedies as the applicant failed to avail himself of a remedy the existence of which was brought to light between the introduction of the application and the Commission's decision on adnrissibility, but which could have been exhausted in the course of that lapse of tirne .
Articles 6 et 8 de la Convention : RÃ¨gle pÃ©nitentiaire selon laque!le un dÃ©tenu ne peut prendre contact sans tÃ©moin avec un honurre de toi aux fins d'intenter ture action en justice avant qu'ait eu lieu. quant Ã l'objet de sa plainte, urte emquÃ©te adrninistrative interne (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable) .
Article 8 de la Conventlon : Limitation de la correspondance d'un dÃ©terru Ã celle qu'il entretient avec des proches (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable) . Article 8, paragraphe 2, de la Convention : a) Doit Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme prÃ©vue par (a loi une linritation apportÃ©e aux , visites . faites Ã un dÃ©tenu, lorsque le rÃ¨glement invoquÃ© muorise uue litnitation des â¢ contrrtunications . . b) Limitation des visites Ã un dÃ©tenu en rÃ©gime de haute sÃ©curitÃ© : ingÃ©rence jugÃ©e nÃ©cessaire, en l'espÃ¨ce, Ã¢/a dÃ©fense de l'ordre et Ã (a prÃ©verttiorr des infractions pÃ©nales. A rt icle 13 de la Convention, combinÃ© avec les articles 6 et 8 de la Convention : A bsence allÃ©guÃ©e de recours effectif contre les resnictions Ã la correspondance d'un dÃ©tenu et Ã son accÃ¨s Ã un tribunal (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable) . Arricle 26 de la Convention : Non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours irrternes du fait que le requÃ©rant a omis d'exercer un recours dont l'existence est apparue emre l'introduction de la requÃ©te et la dÃ©cision de la Cornrnissiorr sur la recevabilitÃ© de celle-ci, mais qui aurait pu Ãªtre exercÃ© au cours de ce laps de ternps .
((rarcais : voirp . 115)
The applicant is a Roman Catholic priest, born in England in 1940 . He is represented by Mr Cedric Thornberry, barrister-at-law, and Ms Karin Landgren acting on the instructions of Mr A .D .W . Logan, solicitor, Guildford (Surrey) . The applicant was amested in about April 1973 and on 1 November 1973 was convicted at Birmingham Crown Court of conspiracy to commit arson, conspiracy to commit malicious damage and taking part in the control and management of an organisation using violent means to obtain a political end (the IRA) . He was sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment . He was in Albany Prison front July 1976 onwards, prior to which he was detained at different times in four prisons in England . He is now in Parkhurst Prison . In his application, the applicant made a variety of complaints concerning matters arising during his detention . They concerned, in particular, an incident which occurred in Albany Prison on 16 September 1976 and event s
thereafter . On 9 October 1980 the Commission declarÃ©d the application partly inadmissible . The remaining complaints with which the present claim is concerned, relate to the following matters : - rertain continuing restrictions on the applicant's correspondence and visits - Articles 8 and 13 ; - disciplinary proceedings against the applicant before the Board of Visitors following the incident - Articles 6 and 13 ; - the applicant's access to legal advice and court following the abovementioned incident - Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention ; The facts relevant to these complaints, presented by the pa rt ies, are summa ri sed below . In some respects they are in'dispute . Vlslts end correspondence In his application the eppllcant made various allegations concerning the question of his visits and correspondence in prison . He alleged that at the time of his mother's death, in June 1976, he applied for extra letters and was granted a single letter over the normal issue of one . per week . An application for compassionate visits was allegedly refused and . in June 1976 he received only two thirty-minute visits . The applicant further stated that he had often been refused visits and letters from nuns and priests of his acquaintance . In particular he alleged that he had been refused visits from Father F ., a priest from D . who he had known since 1968-69, and from a sister P . of L . The applicant also stated that two parishioners, a Mr & Mrs O ., known to him for 4-5 years visited him almost daily during his nine-month detention on remand but were refused permission to visit him from the date of his conviction . As to correspondence, the applicantstated that he was not allowed to correspond with Sister P . or with another . nun, from Liverpool . The applicant also referred to alleged "interference" with mail dealing with current legal proceedings (his appeal) whilst at Wakefield Prison (January to July 1974) . He referred in this contect to a letter of 27 October 1974 from the Home Secretary stating inter alia : "The Governor felt obliged, for security reasons, to exercise his discretion to censor all Father Fell's mail, including letters concerning his appeal ." The applicant also asserted that at Hull Prison (July 1974 to May 1976) instructions were entered on his record that all letters to and from Father F . were to be photocopied to the Home Office . Further allegations concerning correspondence with the applicant's solicitors since September 1976 are set out below . The respondent Government state that, as a priest, the applicant is known to a large number of people . Whilst on remand he received correspondence from more than 200 people . After being convicted he was permitted - 104 -
to correspond with 40 of them . In June 1976, when his mother died, many letters and cards of condolence were sent to him . He was allowed to receive all the cards but letters from persons not on the list of 40 approved correspondents were returned . The applicant applied for permission to write two letters in addition to his allowance under the Prison Rules . Both application were granted . All his correspondence at Hull Prison was photocopied and submitted to the Honie Office for security reasons according to the Government . The applicant was transferred from Hull to Bristol because he was suspected of involvment in an escape plot . The practise of photocopying his correspondence was terntinated after his transfer . As to visits, the Government state that no application for a compassionate visit was made by the applicant in June 1976 when he was at Bristol . He received two visits during the month . As to Father F ., the applicant applied in early 1974 to have him approved as a visitor . Enquiries indicated that he was not an existing friend of the applicant's and the request was therefore refused . After reconsideration of the decision it was subsequently accepted that Father F . was known to the applicant prior to his being taken into custody but it was considered that he was only an acquaintance and not a friend and that no special circumstances justitied an exceptional decision in this case . No application was made for Sister P . to be approved as a visitor . As to Mr & Mrs O . the Government state that the applicant applied in early 1975 for them to be placed on his list of approved visitors . Enquiries confirmed that they had known the applicant for about three years prior to his trial . On the basis of the information then available the application was refused because of the security risk which seemed to be involved . The Government deny that there was any policy of refusing to allow the applicant to be visited by . or to correspond with, priests or religious associates . In their written observations they point out that 20 persons are at present authorised to visit the applicant, including two priests and that in addition he receives pastoral visits from the Chaplain to the Archbishop of Birmingham and also receives the ministrations of the Roman Catholic chaplain to the prison . 2 . Pro ceedings beforo the Board of Vislton erlsing out of the Incldent of 16 September 197 6 On 16 September 1976 an incident took place in the Albany Prison involving a struggle between the applicant and five other prisoners on the one side and a number of prison officers on the other . There is dispute as to what occurred . Broadly speaking the applicant's version of the incident is that the prisoners were unarmed and engaged in a peaceful protest by sitting down in a "spur" or corridor, that they were attacked by a considerable number of prison officers in riot gear and that he and other prisoners received inju ri es . The applicant maintains that he was assaulted by officers not only on the spu r
- 10S -
itself but after he had been removed from it, in pa rt icular in a cell . The offlcial version of the incident is, broadly, that the prisoners refused to leave the spur peacefully and had to be removed forcibly by warders wearing protective helmets and carrying batons, that they resisted with weapons, including chair legs and other items, and that both prisoners and warders sustained injuries in the struggle . On 1 8 September 1976 the applicant was charged in connection with the incident with four offences under the Prison Rules 1964 namely : a . absenting himself from a place where he was required to be - Rule 47 (6) b . disobeying a lawful order - Rule 47 (18 ) c . mutiny - Rule 47 (1) ; d. gross personal violence to an officer - Rule 47 (2) . At a preliminary hearing before the Governor on 21 September 1976, the applicant pleaded guilty to the charge (a) above, under Rule 47 (6), and not guilty to the remaining charges . The Governor referred all the charges to the Board of Visitors . Pending the hearing the applicant was segregated from other prisoners under Prison Rule 48 (2) which provides that a prisoner who is to be charged with an offence against discipline may be kept apart from other prisoners pending adjudication . The hearing before the Board of Visitors took place on 24 September 1976 . The applicant was certified fit by the prison medical officer beforehand . He was found not guilty of the charge of disobeying an order and guilty of the charges of ntutiny and assault . The Board awarded him a total of 570 days' loss of remission and 112 days' cellular confinement and loss of earnings and various privileges on these charges . The applicant was also awarded seven days' cellular confinement and loss of earnings and privileges on the charge of absenting himself from the place where he was required to be, to which he had pleaded guilty . The applicant states that he was refused any opportunity to communicate with anyone else before the hearing . He states that the hearing lasted about 8 or 15 minutes and alleges that he was refused a request to call as a witness the Deputy Governor who had been involved in the incident . It is also alleged on behalf of the applicant that, although physically fit enough to attend the hearing . he was not mentally or emotionally competent at the time . In this respect reference is made to a letter written by a Dr S . who visited the applicant on 25 September . He described various injuries and also stated thÃ¢t the applicant was in a"confused state akin to concussion" . The Government maintain that the applicant was given adequate opportunity to present his case and state that there is no record that he asked to call a witness .
3 . Contact between the applicent and his sollcltor after 16 September 197 6 On and after 21 September 1976 the applicant petitioned the Home Secretary for permission to seek legal advice in connection with the incident and also for permissi .n to seek an independent medical examination . On I October 1976 the Home Office replied to the request concerning legal advice by stating that the applicant should first complain in sufficient detail to enable his complaints to be investigated, through internal channel . On 5 October 1976 the request for independent medical examination was refused . On 4 October 1976 the applicant re-petitioned giving details of his allegations . In a reply of 9 February 1977 he was informed that the Home Secretary was satisfied there was no substance in his allegations of assault and inadequate or delayed medical treatment and told that he would be granted facilities lo seek legal advice if he wished . On 10 February 1977 the applicant's solicitors wrote to the Governor of Albany Prison requesting permission to interview the applicant . On 14 February 1977 the Governor replied stating that this would be in order . Thereafter the solicitors asked for confirmation of the conditions under which they might visit the applicant . In a letter of 23 March 1977 the Governor informed them that under Rule 27 (2) of the Prison Rules the visit must take place within sight and hearing of a prison otl'tcer . On 30 March 1977 the solicitors replied that they were unable to accept these conditions . After introduction of the present application, the prison Governor informed the solicitors, by letter of 12 May 1977, that they might visit the applicant subject to the provisions of Rule 37 (1) of the Prison Rules, in sight but out of hearing of an officer . This provision provides for such facilities to be afforded to a prisoner who is a party to "legal proceedings" . According to the Government the reference to Rule 37 (1) was made in error and the facilities were in fact granted under Rule 33 (5) which enables the Secretary of State to direct that a visit take place out of the hearing of a prison officer in cases other than those expressly provided for in the Rules . The applicant has apparently since received various legal advice concerning his allegations of assault during the incident of 16 September 1976 and concerning the hearing before the Board of Visitors, and has taken certain steps with a view to instituting proceedings in the United Kingdom Courts in connection with these matters . It appears that writs were issued in September 1979 on his behalf and o n behalf of five other prisoners involved in the incident, instituting proceedings against the Home Office, a prison Deputy Governor and individual prison officers on grounds of assault and that statements of claim were served some 15 months after issue of the writs . - 107 -
As to the Board of Visitors' proceedings, the applicant received preliminary advice . in November 1979 to the effect that an application to the High Court for an order of certiorari to quash the Board of Visitors' decision might be feasible . He was granted legal aid for the purpose of obtaining counsel's opinion on the matter . On 16 June 1980, counsel advised that certiorari would not lie, there having been no breach of the rules of natural justice . However further consideration was given to the matter and on 3 February 1981 senior counsel advised on the advisability of an immediate application for certiorari on the ground that there had been "substantial unfairness" in the Board of Visitor's hearing .
THE APPLICANT'S COMPLAINTS UNDER THE CONVENTIO N In his application the applicant made the following complaints under the Convention . Article 6 ( Accese to Court ) - that he was refused access to his solicitor for almost five months after being assaulted in the incident of 16 September 1976, contrary to Article 6 . paragraph 1 . - that he was refused access to his solicitor in conditions which would respect the contidentiality of such consultation for approximately two further months, contrary to Article 6, paragraph 1 . - that he was refused access to independent medical examination after such assaults . contrary to Article 6, paragraph 1 . In support of these complaints the applicant submitted that the application of the requirement of "internal ventilation" of complaints before access lo legal advice was allowed was in breach of the right of access to court under Article 6 . paragraph 1 . of the Convention, as interpreted by the Court in the Golder Case (Judgment of 21 February 1975) . He submitted that the refusal of confidential consultation placed him in a situation where he would either be impelled not to take legal advice, or to lake it in a manner which jeopardised his rights and that there was consequently a breach of Article 6 in this connection also . He also submitted that in light of the inevitably ambivalent position of prison doctors in litigation against their employers, the refusal to allow independent medical examination also breached Article 6, paragraph 1 . Article 6 (Dlsclplinary proceedinga ) - that the Board of Visitors' hea ri ng on 24 September 1976 occurred in circumstances that were in breach of Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 3 .
In this connection the applicant observed that, from sentences passed against the other f Â­ ve prisoners involved in the incident (who did not attend the hearing), it seemed that the presence or absence of the accused, which might be considered an integral factor under Article 6, made no apparent difference to the punishments imposed . He submitted that each guarantee of Article 6 . paragraph 3, save that of Article 6, paragraph 3 (e), was breached . The issue whether he was granted "adequate time" was, he suggested, superfluous since no facilities for preparation of a defence were given . He was never permitted to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf. Although informed that he might call witnesses, such right was retracted on his attempting to call the Deputy Governor involved in the incident . The applicant also submitted that Article 6 was applicable to the proceedings in question, since they fell within the "criminal" sphere under the criteria laid down by the Court in the Fngel case for distinguishing the "criminal" from the "disciplinary" .
Article 8 - that the refusal, for a period of approximately two months to permit the applicant to consult his solicitor, save in the hearing of a prison officer, was in breach of his right to private life . - that the refusal to perniit him to write to a solicitor for a period of approximately five months commencing in September 1976 constituted a breach of his right to correspondence .
- that the continuing refusal to permit him to correspond with friends, including two nuns, constituted an unjustifiable breach of his right to correspondence . - that the refusal to permit him visits from friends, including religious colleagues, a priest and nuns, without sufficient reason, constituted a breach of his right to private life . In connection with this complaint the applicant referred to the Commission's previous jurisprudence to the effect that "the right to respect for private life . . . comprises . . . to a certain degree, the right to establish and to develop relationships with other human beings . . ." (Application No . 6825/74 X v . Iceland, Decisions and Reports 5, p . 86) . He also referred to Rules 37 and 58 of the Council of Europe Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and to Rule 62 which states that :"The treatment of prisoners should emphasise not their exclusion from the community but their continuing part in it" . He conceded that restrictions on private and family life might to some extent be implicit in the conditions of imprisonment but submitted that only restrictions falling within Article 8, paragraph 2, were justifiable and that no provisions of Article B . paragraph 2, justified the restriction in his case .
- lp9 -
Article 8 required that a reasonable balance be struck between security and family and private life, but no such balance was attempted in his respect . Artlcle 1 3 - the applicant had no effective remedies before a national authority in respect of these alleged violations of his rights and freedoms . The applicant submitted that Article 13 required an "effective or suMcienP" remedy "according to the generally recognised rule of international law" as set out by the Commission in its constant jurisprudence . He recalled the submissions made in the case of Campbell (No . 7819/77) * . The Prison Rules did not provide any legal basis for an action by a prisoner but "in many instances purport to protect and regulate rights in domestic law which are set forth in the Convention" . He submitted that this was clearly the case in respect of :(a) punishments imposed by a Board of Visitors ;(b) interferences with his civil rights and failure to afford him a fair trial in a penal matter, forming the basis of his complaints under Article 6 ; (r) interferences with his correspondence and private and family life forming the basis of his complaints under Article 8 .
THE LA W The Commission has first considered the applicant's complaints con1. cerning the authorities' refusal to allow him to receive visits from certain persons . It first observes that in his application the applicant has made reference to various alleged interferences with his correspondence and visits from about 1974 onwards . However his complaints under the Convention are directed solely to the continuing effects of the authorities' decisions refusing him permission to correspond with, or receive visits from, certain individuals . It is not in dispute that the applicant has been refused, in the past, permission to receive visits from Father F . and a Mr & Mrs O . In his application he alleged that he had also been refused visits from a nun . Sister P . The documents he submitted, including a relevant petition reply, indicated only that he had been refused permission to correspond with her and the Government state that no application was made on her behalf to become an approved visitor . The applicant has not disputed this statement and the Conimission finds that his original allegation concerning a refusal of visiting permission is not substantiated .
â¢ See D .R . 14, p . 186 .
The Commission notes that the refusal to approve Father F . as a visitor was based on the authorities' view that he was not a"friend" of the applicant . The decision relative to Mr and Mrs O . was motivated, according to the Governntent . by the fact that on the basis of information available at the time, a security risk seemed to be involved . The Government argue that insofar as the restriction on the persons who may visit the applicant may interfere with his right to respect for private life under Article 8, paragraph 1, it is justifiable under Article 8, paragraph 2, as being in accordance with the law and necessary for inter alia "the prevention of disorder or crime" . They argue that the rule or practice of restricting visitors to close relatives or personal friends is in principle justifiable on this ground . The applicant maintains that the restrictions in question were not "in accordance with the law" and denies that they were necessary for any of the purposes mentioned in Article 8, paragraph 2 . The Commission finds that the restrictions complained of in this case were "in accordance with the law" for the purposes of Article 8, paragraph 2 . It notes in this respect that Rule 34 (8) of the Prison Rules specifically provides that, except with the leave of the Secretary of State, a prisoner may not communicate with any person other than a relative or friend and Rule 33 (1) of the Prison Rules also authorises the Secreta ry of State to impose restrictions on communications between a prisoner and other persons with a view to secu ri ng inter alia "discipline and good order or the prevention of crinie" . It is true, as the applicant has pointed out, that these provisions do not expressly mention "visits" . However the Commission considers that the word "communications" is apt to cover personal visits in addition to postal or other communications and it is clear from the context that it is intended to do so in the Prison Rules . The restrictions at issue in the present case were, in the Commission's view, adequately foreseeable from the above-mentioned provisions (see Silver and others v, the United Kingdom . Repo rt of the Commission , paras . 277-285 and 329) . The Contmission does not find it necessa ry in the present case to decide as a matter of general principle whether the relevant rules, in pa rt icular the limitation of visits to those by close relatives or friends, are justifiable under Article 8 (2) . It is not its task to examine the relevant legislation in abstracto and it must, so far as possible, confine its examination of a case to the manner in which legislation has actually been applied to the individual applicant ( see e .g . Marckx Case . Series A, Vol . 31, p . 13, para . 27 ; Guzzardi Case, Series A . Vol . 39, pp . 31-32, para . 88) . The Commission accepts that some restriction on the number of persons who may visit a high security prisoner such as the present applicant may legitimately be considered necessary under Article 8 (2) "for the prevention of disorder or crime" . It accepts furthermore that this is the aim of the restrictions
at issue in the present case . Taking into account the general manner in which the relevant provisions have been applied to the applicant, who has a substaotial number of approved visitors, the Commission does not find that the continuing restrictions on the persons who may visit the applicant go beyond what could be considered "necessary" for that purpose . It considers that, contrary to the applicant's submission, a reasonable balance does appear to have been drawn between the requirements of security and the applicant's private and family life . Accordingly even assuming that the restrictions in question could be seen as an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private life, they were justified under Article 8 (2) . This part of the application is therefore ntanifestly ill-founded and inadmissible under Article 27, paragraph 2, of the Convention . 2 . The applicant also complains of a continuing restriction on his correspondence arising from the application of the rule prohibiting correspondence with persons other than relatives or friends . In particular he complains that he is not allowed to correspond with two nuns, Sister P . and Sister B . He invokes Article 8 of the Convention . The Commission notes that this part of the application raises issues under Article 8 of the Convention similar to those which it considered in the case of Silver and others v . the United Kingdom (Report adopted on 11 October 1980, paras . 327-335), which is now pending before the Court . This part of the application therefore raises issues which require examination on the merits and falls to be declared admissible . 3 . The Commission has next considered the applicant's complaints concerning the proceedings before the Board of Visitors . The applicant complains primarily of unfairness by the Board of Visitors in their handling of his case . He alleges in particular that they dealt with his case when he was not in a fit mental or emotional condition, that he did not have adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence and that he was not able to call witnesses, in particular a Deputy Governor . He invokes Article 6 of the Convention . It is in dispute that the judgment of the Court of appeal in the St . Germain case, which was delivered on 3 October 1978, established as a rule of English law that the disciplinary awards of Boards of Visitors are subject to judicial review and may be quashed by order of certiorari. The Government maintain that since the applicant has not sought such review, this part of the application is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies . The applicant, whilst not now disputing that he may be able to obtain ccrtiorari on grounds of substantial unfairness and thus have the decision quashed . maintains that the present existence of this remedy is irrelevant since it was not available at the date of introduction of his application . -112-
The Commission considers that it must normally decide the question whether domestic remedies have been exhausted by reference to the situation presented to it at the date of its decision on admissibility . If at that date it is clear that a dontestic remedy is, or has been, available to the applicant, then the existence of that remedy must be taken into account . The remedy of certiorari has been available to the applicant since at least 3 October 1978 . Even though its availability was uncertain before the St Grnunirt litigation settled the matter, it has clearly been open to the applicant to apply for it at any time since then, but he has not done so . Insofar as it would if successful lead to the quashing of the findings of guilt and disciplinary awards against the applicant, the Commission considers it an efl'ective and adequate remedy similar in result to an appeal against conviction in a crintinal case . In these circumstances the Commission finds that the applicant has failed to comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies laid down in Article 26 of the Convention and this part of the application is accordingly inadmissible under Article 27, paragraph 3 . 4 . The Commission has next considered the applicant's complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention relating to his access to legal advice and court . The applicant complains in particular of : - delay in affording him access to legal advice through the operation of the "internal ventilation" rule ; - refusal to allow independent medical examinatio n - refusal, for a certain time, to allow him confldential consultations with his lawyer. The Commission finds that this part of the application raises issues under Article 6 and 8 of the Convention which are to some extent similar to those which arise in the connected case of Campbell (Application No . 7819/77) which it has already declared admissible, and, so far as concems correspondence the case of Silver and others v . the United Kingdom, which is now pending before the Court . The present case raises the additional question relating to the conlidentiality of legal consultation, but this is very closely connected to the other issues . In the circumstances the Commission finds that this part of the application is not manifestly ill-founded and that there is no other obstacle to its admissibility . It must therefore be declared admissible . S . The Commission has finally considered the applicant's complaint under Article 13 of the Convention to the effect that he has no effective remedy in respect of the above-mentioned complaints . - 113 -
Insofar as this complaint is related to the applicant's complaints concerning visits, the Commission finds that it has not been shown that the prison administrative remedies, including in particular a petition to the Honte Secretary, would be insufficient for the purposes of Article 13, having regard in particular to the number of visitors in respect of whom the applicant has been able to obtain approval . Insofar as the complaint relates to a remedy in respect of the proceedings before the Board of Visitors, the Commission notes that, as it has found above, it is open to the applicant to apply to the High Court for judicial review of the relevant decision . To this extent therefore the applicant's complaint under Article 13 is manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible under Article 27, paragraph 2, of the Convention . On the other hand, insofar as the applicant complains that he has no effective remedy in respect of his complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention in relation to his correspondence and his access to court and legal and medical advice, the Commission finds that issues arise under Article 13 of the Convention which require examination on the merits and that this part of the applicant's complaint cannot be described as manifestly ill-founded . In the absence of any other ground of inadmissibility, it must therefore be declared admissible . For these reasons, the Commission 1 . DECLARES ADMISSIBIL E - the applicant's complaints under A rt icle 8 of the Convention concerning a continuing restri ction on his correspondence with ce rt ain persons ( para . 2 above) and under Article 13 concerning the alleged lack of a remedy in respect thereof ( para . 5 above) ; - his complaints under A rticles 6 and 8 of the Convention concerning his access to legal advice and cou rt (para . 4 above) and under Article 13 concerning the alleged lack of a remedy in respect thereof ( para . 5 above) . 11 . DECLARES THE REMAINDER OF THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
EN FAI T Le requÃ©rant est un prÃ©tre catholique nÃ© en Angleterre en 1940 . II est reprÃ©sentÃ© par Me Cedric Thornberry, avocat, et par Mme Karin Landgren, agissant sur les instructions de M . A .D .W . I.ogan, solicitor Ã Guildford (Surrey) . Il a Ã©tÃ© arr@tÃ© en avril 1973 et le 1Â« novembre 1973 a Ã©tÃ© reconnu coupable par la Crown Court de Birmingham d'entente en vue de provoquer un incendie, d'entente en vue de commettre un sabotage et de participation Ã la direction et au commandement d'une organisation recourant Ã la violence Ã des fins politiques (l'IRA) . Il a Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© Ã douze ans de prison . Il a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu Ã la prison d'Albany Ã contpter de juillet 1976 aprÃ¨s avoir Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu dans quatre prisons d'Angleterre . Il se trouve actuellement Ã la prison de Parkhurst . Dans sa requÃªte le requÃ©rant a formulÃ© divers griefs relatifs Ã des questions qui ont surgi au cours de sa dÃ©tention . Elles ont trait en particulier Ã un incident survenu Ã la prison d'Albany le 16 septembre 1976 et Ã des Ã©vÃ©nements ultÃ©rieurs . Le 9 octobre 1980 . la Commission a dÃ©clarÃ© la requÃªte en partie irrecevable . Les autres griefs, qui seront examinÃ©s ici, portent sur les questions suivantes : - certaines restrictions continues Ã la correspondance et aux visites du requÃ©rant - articles 8 et 13 ; - procÃ©dure disciplinaire contre le requÃ©rant devant la commission des visiteurs des prisons aprÃ¨s l'incident - articles 6 et 13 ; - accÃ¨s du requÃ©rant Ã des conseils juridiques et Ã un tribunal Ã la suite de l'incident susmentionnÃ© - articles 6, 8 et 13 de la Convention . Les faits qui sont Ã la base de ces griefs, tels qu'ils sont exposÃ©s par les parties, sont rÃ©sumÃ©s ci-aprÃ¨s . Ils sont contestÃ©s sur certains points . Visites et correspondance Dans sa requÃªte, le requÃ©rrnt a forniulÃ© diverses allÃ©gations relatives Ã la question de ses visites et de sa correspondance en prison . Il a allÃ©guÃ© qu'au moment du dÃ©cÃ¨s de sa mÃ¨re, en juin 1976, il avait demandÃ© Ã recevoir des lettres supplÃ©mentaires et ne s'est vu accorder qu'une seule lettre en plus du contingent normal d'une par semaine . Une demande de visites exceptionnelles pour raisons humanitaires a Ã©tÃ© prÃ©tendument rejetÃ©e et en juin 1976 il n'aurait reÃ§u que deux visites de trente minutes . Il a dÃ©clarÃ© en outre qu'on lui a souvent refusÃ© des visites et des lettres de religieuses et de prÃªtres de sa connaissance . Il a prÃ©tendu en particulier qu'on lui a refusÃ© des visites du PÃ¨re F ., un prÃªtre de D . qu'il connaissait - 115 -
depuis 1968-1969 et d'une Sreur P ., de Leeds . II a aussi dÃ©clarÃ© que deux paroissiens, M . et Mme O ., qu'il connaissait depuis quatre ou cinq ans, lui avaient rendu visite presque quotidiennement au cours de sa dÃ©tention provisoire de neuf mois, mais n'avaient plus Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ©s Ã lui rendre visite Ã partir de sa condamnation . Quant Ã la correspondance, le requÃ©rant a dÃ©clarÃ© ne pas avoir Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã correspondre avec la So :ur P . ou une autre, de Liverpool . Il a aussi mentionnÃ© une Â« ingÃ©rence . prÃ©tendue dans son courrier portant sur une procÃ©dure judiciaire en cours (son appel) alors qu'il se trouvait Ã la prison de Wakefield (de janvier Ã juillet 1974) . 11 s'est rÃ©fÃ©rÃ© Ã cet Ã©gard Ã une lettre du 27 octobre 1974 du MinistÃ¨re de l'intÃ©rieur disant notamment : . Le directeur (de la prison) a cru devoir, pour des raisons de sÃ©curitÃ©, exercer son pouvoir discrÃ©tionnaire de censurer tout le courrier du PÃ¨re Fell, y compris les lettres relatives Ã son appel . - Le requÃ©rant a aussi affirmÃ© qu'Ã la prison de Hull (de juillet 1974 Ã mai 1976) a Ã©tÃ© consignÃ©e dans son dossier l'instruction de faire photocopier Ã l'intention du MinistÃ¨re de l'intÃ©rieur toutes les lettres adressÃ©es au PÃ¨re F . ou envoyÃ©es par lui . D'autres allÃ©gations relatives Ã la correspondance avec les solicitors du requÃ©rant depuis septembre 1976 sont rapportÃ©es plus loin .
Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur dÃ©clare qu'en tant que prÃªtre le requÃ©rant est connu d'un grand nombre de personnes . Alors qu'il se trouvait en dÃ©tention provisoire il a reÃ§u de la correspondance de plus de deux cents personnes. AprÃ¨s sa condamnation . il a Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã correspondre avec quarante d'entre elles . En juin 1976, lorsque sa mÃ¨re est dÃ©cÃ©dÃ©e, de nombreuses lettres et cartes de condolÃ©ances lui ont Ã©tÃ© adressÃ©es . On l'a autorisÃ© Ã recevoir toutes les cartes, mais les lettres des personnes ne figurant pas sur la liste des quarante correspondants agrÃ©Ã©s ont Ã©tÃ© retournÃ©es . Le requÃ©rant a demandÃ© l'autorisation d'Ã©crire deux lettres en plus de celles auxquelles le rÃ¨glement pÃ©nitentiaire lui donnait droit . Il a Ã©tÃ© accÃ©dÃ© Ã ces deux demandes . Toute sa correspondance Ã la prison de Hull a Ã©tÃ© photocopiÃ©e et adressÃ©e au MinistÃ¨re de l'intÃ©rieur, selon le Gouvemement pour des raisons de sÃ©curitÃ© . Ix requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ© de Hull Ã Bristol parce qu'il Ã©tait soupÃ§onnÃ© de tremper dans un complot d'Ã©vasion . AprÃ¨s ce transfert on a cessÃ© de photocopier sa correspondance . Pour ce qui est des visites, le Gouvernement dÃ©clare que le requÃ©rant n'a demandÃ© aucune visite exceptionnelle pour raisons humanitaires en juin 1976, alors qu'il Ã©tait Ã Bristol . Il a reÃ§u deux visites au cours du mois . Quant au PÃ¨re F ., le requÃ©rant a demandÃ© au dÃ©but de 1974 qu'il soit agrÃ©Ã© comme visiteur . Les enquÃªtes ont montrÃ© que ce n'Ã©tait pas un ami attitrÃ© du requÃ©rant et la requÃªte a donc Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©e . AprÃ¨s un nouvel examen de la dÃ©cision, il a Ã©tÃ© admis que le PÃ¨re F . Ã©tait connu du requÃ©rant avant que celui-ci ne fÃ»t emprisonnÃ©, mais on a estimÃ© qu'il s'agissait d'une simple connaissance et non d'un ami et qu'aucune circonstance particuliÃ¨re ne justifiait une dÃ©cisio n -116-
exceptionnelle dans ce cas . Aucune demande n'a Ã©tÃ© faite de reconnaÃ®tre la qualitÃ© de visiteur Ã la So:ur P . . Pour ce qui est de M . et Mme O ., le Gouvernement dÃ©clare que le requÃ©rant a demandÃ© au dÃ©but de 1975 Ã les faire figurer sur la liste de ses visiteurs agrÃ©Ã©s . Des enquÃªtes ont confirmÃ© qu'ils connaissaient le requÃ©rant depuis trois ans environ avant son procÃ¨s . Vu les renseignements disponibles, la demande a Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©e en raison du danger qu'il semblait y avoir pour la sÃ©curitÃ© . Le Gouvernement nie qu'il y ait eu quelque politique concertÃ©e de refuser d'autoriser le requÃ©rant Ã recevoir des visites de pr@tres ou d'autres ecclÃ©siastiques ou de correspondre avec eux . Dans ses observations Ã©crites, il relÃ¨ve que vingt personnes, dont deux prÃ©tres, sont actuellement autorisÃ©es Ã rendre visite au requÃ©rant et qu'en outre celui-ci reÃ§oit des visites pastorales de l'aumÃ´nier attachÃ© Ã l'archevÃªchÃ© de Birmingham et bÃ©nÃ©ficie aussi du ntinistÃ¨re de l'aumÃ´nier catholique attachÃ© Ã la prison . 2 . ProcÃ©dure devant la commission des visiteurs des prisons Ã la sulte de l'incident du 16 septembre 197 6 Le 16 septentbre 1976 un incident est survenu Ã la prison d'Albany : une rixe s'est engagÃ©e entre le requÃ©rant et cinq autres dÃ©tenus, d'une part . et plusieurs gardiens de prison, de l'autre . Il y a contestation sur les faits prÃ©cis . La version que le requÃ©rant donne de l'incident est en gros que les dÃ©tenus n'Ã©taient pas armÃ©s et ont entrepris une protestation pacifique en s'asseyant dans un dÃ©tour du couloir, qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© assaillis par un grand nombre de gardiens en tenue de combat et que lui-mÃªme et d'autres dÃ©tenus ont Ã©tÃ© blessÃ©s . Il soutient qu'il a Ã©tÃ© assailli par des gardiens non seulement dans le corridor mais aprÃ¨s en avoir Ã©tÃ© emmenÃ©, notamment dans une cellule . Selon la version officielle de l'incident, en gros, les dÃ©tenus ont refusÃ© de quitter le corridor tranquillement et ont dÃ» en Ãªtre dÃ©logÃ©s de force par des gardiens qui portaient des casques de protection et des matraques, qu'ils ont rÃ©sistÃ© avec des armes, y compris des pieds de chaises et autres objets, et que des dÃ©tenus comme des gardiens ont Ã©tÃ© blessÃ©s dans la bataille . Le 18 septembre 1976 le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© accusÃ© Ã propos de l'incident de quatre infractions au rÃ¨glement pÃ©nitentiaire de 1964, Ã savoir : a . d'abandon d'un endroit oÃ¹ il Ã©tait tenu de se trouver - article 47, paragraphe 6 ; b . de dÃ©sobÃ©issance Ã un ordre rÃ©gulier - article 47, paragraphe 18 c . de mutinerie - article 47, paragraphe 1 d . de graves voies de fait sur la personne d'un gardien - article 47, paragraphe 2 . Au cours d'une audience prÃ©liminaire devant le directeur de ta prison le 21 septembre 1976, le requÃ©rant a plaidÃ© coupable du chef d'accusation a . - 117 -
ci-dessus, visÃ© Ã l'article 47, paragraphe 6, et non coupable des autres chefs d'accusation . Le directeur a transmis toutes les accusations Ã la commission des visiteurs des prisons . Au cours de l'audience, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© sÃ©parÃ© des autres dÃ©tenus en application de l'article 48, paragraphe 2 du rÃ¨glement pÃ©nitentiaire, qui prÃ©voit qu'un dÃ©tenu sur le point d'Ãªtre inculpÃ© pour une infraction Ã la discipline peut Ãªtre tenu Ã l'Ã©cart des autres dÃ©tenus en attendant la dÃ©cision . L'audience devant la commission des visiteurs des prisons a eu lieu le 24 septembre 1976 . Au prÃ©alable, le requÃ©rant avait Ã©tÃ© dÃ©clarÃ© apte par le mÃ©decin de la prison . La commission l'a dÃ©clarÃ© non coupable de l'accusation de dÃ©sobÃ©issance Ã un ordre et coupable des chefs de mutinerie et de voies de fait . Elle a prononcÃ© pour ce motif au total 570 jours de perte de remise de peine et 112 jours de rÃ©clusion cellulaire, de perte de salaire et de divers privilÃ¨ges . Le requÃ©rant s'est aussi vu infliger sept jours de rÃ©clusion cellulaire et de perte de gains et de privilÃ¨ges pour s'Ãªtre absentÃ© de l'endroit oÃ¹ il Ã©tait tenu de se trouver . chef d'accusation pour lequel il avait plaidÃ© coupable . Le requÃ©rant dÃ©clare s'Ãªtre vu refuser toute possibilitÃ© de communiquer avec qui que ce soit avant l'audience . Selon lui, celle-ci a durÃ© de 8 Ã 15 minutes et il prÃ©tend qu'on a rejetÃ© sa demande de citer comme tÃ©moin le directeur adjoint de la prison, qui avait Ã©tÃ© mÃªlÃ© Ã l'incident . Il prÃ©tend aussi que, bien qu'assez apte physiquement Ã assister Ã l'audience, il n'Ã©tait pas Ã l'Ã©poque en bonne condition d'un point de vue mental ou Ã©motif . A cet Ã©gard, il se rÃ©fÃ¨re Ã la lettre d'un certain docteur S ., qui lui a rendu visite le 25 septembre . Celui-ci a dÃ©crit les diverses blessures et a aussi dÃ©clarÃ© que le requÃ©rant se trouvait - dans un Ã©tat de confusion voisin de l'Ã©tat de choc . . Le Gouvernement soutient que le requÃ©rant a eu une possibilitÃ© suffisante de prÃ©senter sa dÃ©fense et dÃ©clare qu'il n'est mentionnÃ© nulle part que le requÃ©rant ait demandÃ© Ã citer un tÃ©moin . 3 . Contacts entre le requÃ©rant et son solicitor aprÃ¨s le 16 septembre 197 6 Le 21 septembre 1976 et ultÃ©rieurement, le requÃ©rant a demandÃ© au Ministre de l'intÃ©rieur l'autorisation de prendre des conseils juridiques Ã propos de l'incident ainsi que celle de se soumettre Ã un examen mÃ©dical indÃ©pendant . Le 1 - octobre 1976, le ministÃ¨re de l'intÃ©rieur a rÃ©pondu Ã la demande relative Ã une consultation juridique en dÃ©clarant que le requÃ©rant devait d'abord formuler ses plaintes de faÃ§on suffisamment dÃ©taillÃ©e pour qu'elles puissent Ãªtre instruites par la voie interne . Le 5 octobre 1976 la demande d'un examen mÃ©dical indÃ©pendant a Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©e . Le 4 octobre 1976 . le requÃ©rant a prÃ©sentÃ© une nouvelle demande dÃ©taillant ses allÃ©gations . Dans une rÃ©ponse du 9 fÃ©vrier 1977, il a Ã©tÃ© informÃ© que le Ministre de l'intÃ©rieur Ã©tait convaincu que ses allÃ©gations de voies de fait et de traitement mÃ©dical insuffisant ou tardif Ã©taient sans fondement et qu'il se verrait accorder la possibilitÃ© de consulter un homme de loi s'il le souhaitait . - 118-
Le 10 fÃ©v rier 1977, les solicitors du requÃ©rant ont Ã©c ri t au directeur de la p ri son d'Albany en vue d'obtenir l'auto risation de s'entretenir avec le requÃ©rant . Le 14 fÃ©vrier 1977, le directeur a rÃ©pondu favorablement ; aprÃ¨s quoi les solicitors ont demandÃ© confirmation des conditions dans lesquelles ils pourraient rendre visite au requÃ©rant . Dans une lettre du 23 mars 1977, le directeur les a informÃ©s qu'en application de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 du rÃ¨glement pÃ©nitentiaire, la visite devait avoir lieu Ã la vue et Ã po rt Ã©e de voix d'un gardien . Le 30 mars 1977, les solicitors ont rÃ©pondu qu'ils n'Ã©taient pas en mesure d'accepter ces conditions . AprÃ¨s l'introduction de la prÃ©sente requÃªte, le directeur de la p ri son a informÃ© les solicitors, par une lett re du 12 mai 1977, qu'ils pouvaient rendre visite au requÃ©rant sous rÃ©se rve des dispositions de l'article 37, paragraphe 1 du rÃ¨glement pÃ©nitentiai re , Ã la vue mais hors de portÃ©e de voix d'un gardien . Cette disposition prÃ©voit que ces possibilitÃ©s seront accordÃ©es Ã un dÃ©tenu qui est pa rtie Ã une . procÃ©dure judiciaire . . Selon le Gouvernement, c'est par erreur qu'il a Ã©tÃ© fait rÃ©fÃ©rence Ã l'article 37, paragraphe 1 ; ces possibilitÃ©s ont en fait Ã©tÃ© accordÃ©es en application de l'a rt icle 33, paragraphe 5, qui habilite le Ministre Ã ordonner qu'une visite ait lieu hors de po rtÃ©e de voix d'un gardien de prison dans des cas autres que ceux expressÃ©ment prÃ©vus par le rÃ¨glement . I .e requÃ©rant a apparemment re Ã§ u depuis divers conseils ju ri diques quant Ã ses allÃ©gations de voies de fait au cours de l'incident du 16 septembre 1976 et quant Ã l'audience devant la commission des visiteurs des p ri sons, et il a pris ce rt aines mesures en vue d'engager une procÃ©dure devant les t ri bunaux britanniques Ã propos de ces faits .
Il appe rt que des actes introductifs d'instance pour voies de fait ont Ã©tÃ© dÃ©posÃ©s en septembre 1979 au nom du re quÃ©rant et de cinq autres dÃ©tenus mÃªlÃ©s Ã l'incident, contre le MinistÃ¨re de l'inlÃ©rieur, un directeur-adjoint de prison et diffÃ©re nts gardiens et que des dÃ©clarations de plainte ont Ã©tÃ© dÃ©posÃ©es quelque quinze mois aprÃ¨s le dÃ©pÃ´t des actes introductifs d'instance . Pour ce qui est de la procÃ©dure devant la commission des visiteurs des prisons, le requÃ©rant a bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© en novembre 1979 de conseils prÃ©liminaires d'aprÃ¨s lesquels une demande de ce rtiorari adressÃ©e Ã la High Court et visant Ã faire annuler la dÃ©cision de la commission des visiteurs des p ri sons Ã©tait possible . Il a bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© de l'assistance judiciaire en vue d'obtenir l'avis d'un avocat sur la question . Le 16 juin 1980 . l'avocat l'a informÃ© qu'une demande de certiorari serait irrecevable puisqu'il n'y avait eu aucun manquement aux rÃ¨gles de la justice naturelle . Toutefois, l'affai re fut Ã nouveau examinÃ©e et le 3 fÃ©vrier 1981 un avocat de grande expÃ©rience ( senior counsel) lui conseilla d'introduire immÃ©diatement une demande de ce rt iorari au motif qu'il y avait eu une . importante iniquitÃ© â¢ au cours de l'audience devant la commission des visiteurs des prisons . - 119 -
GRIEFS DU REQUÃRANT TIRÃS DE LA CONVENTIO N Dans sa requÃªte, le requÃ©rant a formulÃ© les griefs suivants tirÃ©s de la Convention .
Article 6 (accÃ¨s Ã un tribunal ) - Refus d'accÃ¨s Ã son solicitor pendant presque cinq mois aprÃ¨s qu'il eut subi des voies de fait au cours de l'incident du 16 septembre 1976 violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 1 ;
- Refus d'accÃ¨s Ã son solicitor dans des conditions qui respectent le caractÃ¨re confidentiel d'une telle consultation pendant deux autres mois environ ; violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 1 ; - Refus d'accÃ¨s Ã un examen mÃ©dical indÃ©pendant aprÃ¨s ces voies de fait ; violation de l'article 6, paragraphe 1 . A l'appui de ces griefs le requÃ©rant a soutenu que l'application de la condition d'une . enquÃªte interne - sur ses plaintes avant de pouvoir accÃ©der Ã des conseils juridiques a portÃ© atteinte au droit d'accÃ¨s Ã un tribunal garanti par l'article 6 . paragraphe 1 de la Convention, tel que la Cour l'a interprÃ©tÃ© dans l'affaire Golder (arrÃªt du 21 fÃ©vrier 1975) . Il a soutenu que le refus de le laisser s'entretenir sans tÃ©moin avec un avocat l'a mis dans une situation qui le poussait soit Ã ne pas prendre de conseils, soit Ã les prendre d'une maniÃ¨re qui compromettait ses droits, et qu'il y a donc eu violation de l'article 6 Ã cet Ã©gard Ã©galement . Il a soutenu aussi que vu la position inÃ©vitablement ambivalente des mÃ©decins de la prison dans un procÃ¨s contre leurs employeurs, le refus d'un contrÃ´le mÃ©dical indÃ©pendant a portÃ© lui aussi atteinte Ã l'article 6 . paragraphe 1 . Article 6 (procÃ©dure disciplinaire ) - l'audience du 24 septembre 1976 devant la commission des visiteurs des prisons a eu lieu dans des circonstances qui ont violÃ© l'article 6, paragraphes 1 et 3 . A cet Ã©gard, le requÃ©rant a remarquÃ© qu'il semble ressortir des peines prononcÃ©es contre les cinq autres dÃ©tenus impliquÃ©s dans l'incident (mais qui n'ont pas assistÃ© Ã l'audience) que la prÃ©sence ou l'absence de l'accusÃ©, qui peut Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme un Ã©lÃ©ment visÃ© par l'article 6, n'a entraÃ®nÃ© aucune diffÃ©rence quant aux peines prononcÃ©es . Il a soutenu que toutes les garanties de l'article 6, paragraphe 3, Ã l'exception de celle de l'alinÃ©a e), ont fait dÃ©faut . La question de savoir s'il a disposÃ© du . temps nÃ©cessaire . Ã©tait d'aprÃ¨s lui superflue puisqu'aucune possibilitÃ© de prÃ©parer sa dÃ©fense ne lui fut donnÃ©e . Il n'a jantais pu obtenir la convocation et l'interrogatoire de tÃ©ntoins Ã dÃ©charge . Bien qu'il ait Ã©tÃ© informÃ© qu'il pouvait citer des tÃ©moins, ce droit lui fut dÃ©niÃ© lorsqu'il a tentÃ© de citer le directeur-adjoint de la prison mÃªlÃ© Ã l'incident .
Le requÃ©rant a aussi soutenu que l'article 6 Ã©tait applicable Ã la procÃ©dure en question, puisqu'elle tombe dans le domaine . pÃ©nal . d'aprÃ¨s les critÃ¨res Ã©noncÃ©s par la Cour dans l'affaire Engel pour distinguer entre le . pÃ©nal . et le . disciplinaire â¢ .
Article 8 - Le refus pendant une pÃ©riode de deux mois environ d'autoriser le requÃ©rant Ã consulter son solicitor, sauf Ã portÃ©e de voix d'un gardien de prison, a contrevenu Ã son droit au respect de la vie privÃ©e ; - le refus de l'autoriser Ã Ã©crire Ã un solicitor pendant cinq mois environ Ã compter de septembre 1976 a emportÃ© violation de son droit Ã la correspondance ; - le refus persistant de l'autoriser Ã correspondre avec des amis, y compris deux religieuses, a constituÃ© une violation injustifiable de son droit Ã la correspondance ; - le refus de l'autoriser Ã recevoir des visites d'antis, y compris d'autres ecclÃ©siastiques, un prÃªtre et des religieuses, sans raison suffisante, a constituÃ© une violation de son droit Ã la vie privÃ©e . A propos de ce grief, le requÃ©rant s'est rÃ©fÃ©rÃ© Ã la jurisprudence antÃ©rieure de la Commission selon laquelle le droit au respect de la vie privÃ©e â¢ comprend . . . dans une certaine mesure le droit d'Ã©tablir et d'entretenir des relations avec d'autres Ãªtres humains . . . _(RequÃ©te NÂ° 6825/74, X . contre Islande, DÃ©cisions et Rapports 5 p . 86) . fl a aussi invoquÃ© les articles 37 et 58 de l'Ensemble de rÃ¨gles minima du Conseil de l'Europe pour le traitement des dÃ©tenus et l'article 61, aux termes duquel : . le traitement ne doit pas mettre l'accent sur l'exclusion des dÃ©tenus de la sociÃ©tÃ©, mais au contraire sur le fait qu'ils continuent Ã en faire partie . . Il a admis que des restrictions Ã la vie privÃ©e et familiale peuvent dans une certaine ntesure Ãªtre insÃ©parables des conditions de dÃ©tention mais a soutenu que seules des restrictions relevant de l'article 8, paragraphe 2 se justifiaient et qu'aucune disposition de cet article ne justifiait les restrictions dans son cas . L'article 8 exige que l'on Ã©tablisse un Ã©quilibre raisonnable entre la sÃ©curitÃ© et la vie privÃ©e et familiale mais on ne l'a pas recherchÃ© en ce qui le concerne .
Article 1 3 - Le requÃ©rant ne disposait pas d'un recours effectif devant une instance nationale quant aux violations allÃ©guÃ©es de ses droits et libertÃ©s . Le requÃ©rant a soutenu que l'article 13 exige un recours . effectif ou suffisant â¢ . selon les principes gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnu de droit international ., tel que l'Ã©nonce la Commission dans sa jurisprudence constante . Il a rappel Ã© - 121 -
les arguments avancÃ©s dans l'affaire Campbell (NÂ° 7819/77) * . Le rÃ¨glement pÃ©nitentiaire ne fournirait aucune base lÃ©gale Ã une action qu'intenterait un dÃ©tenu mais . Ã de nombreux Ã©gards . entend protÃ©ger et rÃ©glementer sur le plan interne les droits que la Convention garantit . . (l a soutenu que c'Ã©tait manifestement le cas a) des sanctions prononcÃ©es par la commission des visiteurs des prisons, b) des atteintes Ã ses droits de caractÃ¨re civil et de l'omission de lui assurer un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable en matiÃ¨re pÃ©nale, ce qui constitue la base de ses griefs sur le terrain de l'article 6, et c) des ingÃ©rences dans sa correspondance et dans sa vie privÃ©e et familiale . ce qui constitue la base de ses griefs tirÃ©s de l'article 8 .
EN DROIT 1 . La Commission a d'abord examinÃ© les griefs du requÃ©rant relatifs au refus des autoritÃ©s de l'autoriser Ã recevoir la visite de certaines personnes . Elle remarque d'abord que dans sa requÃªte le requÃ©rant a allÃ©gu Ã© diverses ingÃ©rences dans sa correspondance et ses visites Ã compter de 1974 . Toutefois, ses griefs sur le terrain de la Convention portent seulement sur les effets permanents des dÃ©cisions des autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires lui refusant l'autorisation de correspondre avec certaines personnes ou d'en recevoir la visite . Il n'est pas contestÃ© que . par le passÃ©, le requÃ©rant s'est vu refuser la permission de recevoir des visites du PÃ¨re F . et de certains M . et Mme O . . Dans sa requSte, il a allÃ©guÃ© s'Ãªtre vu Ã©galement refuser la visite d'une religieuse, SÅur P . . Les documents qu'il a produits, y compris la rÃ©ponse qui fut faite Ã une demande, indiquent seulement qu'il lui a Ã©tÃ© refusÃ© de correspondre avec cette religieuse et le Gouvernement dÃ©clare qu'il n'a jamais Ã©tÃ© demandÃ© en son nom qu'elle devienne un visiteur agrÃ©Ã© . (x requÃ©rant n'a pas contestÃ© cette dÃ©claration et la Commission constate que son allÃ©gation initiale quant Ã un refus d'autoriser ces visites n'est pas Ã©tayÃ©e par des faits . La Commission note que le refus d'agrÃ©er le PÃ¨re F . en qualitÃ© de visiteur Ã©tait dÃ» au fait que les autoritÃ©s pensaient qu'il ne s'agissait pas d'un . ami e du requÃ©rant . La dÃ©cision relative Ã M . et Mme O . Ã©tait motivÃ©e, d'aprÃ¨s le Gouvernement, par le fait que, sur la foi des renseignements disponibles Ã l'Ã©poque, il semblait y avoir un risque pour la sÃ©curitÃ© . Lx Gouvernement soutient que, pour autant que la restriction touchant les personnes autorisÃ©es Ã rendre visite au requÃ©rant peut entraver son droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e garanti par l'article S . paragraphe 1, elle se justifie e n
â¢ Voir D .R . 14 p . 1 86 .
vertu de l'article 8, paragraphe 2, comme Ã©tant prÃ©vue par la loi et nÃ©cessaire notamment â¢ Ã la dÃ©fense de l'ordre et Ã la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales â¢ . Il avance que la rÃ¨gle ou la pratique de limiter les visites Ã celles des proches parents ou amis personnels se justifie en principe pour ce motif . Le requÃ©rant soutient que pareilles restrictions n'Ã©taient pas â¢ prÃ©vues par la loi â¢ et nie qu'elles fussent nÃ©cessaires Ã l'une des fins mentionnÃ©es Ã l'article 8, paragraphe 2 . La Commission estime que les restrictions incriminÃ©es en l'espÃ¨ce Ã©taient . prÃ©vues par la loi . . au sens de l'article 8 . paragraphe 2 . Elle note Ã cet Ã©gard que l'article 34, paragraphe 8 du rÃ¨glement pÃ©nitentiaire prÃ©voit spÃ©cifiquement que, sauf si le Ministre de l'intÃ©rieur donne son autorisation, un dÃ©tenu ne peut communiquer avec une personne autre qu'un parent ou ami et que l'article 33, paragraphe 1 du rÃ¨glement pÃ©nitentiaire autorise aussi le Ministre de l'intÃ©rieur Ã imposer des restrictions aux communications entre un dÃ©tenu et d'autres personnes en vue d'assurer notamment â¢ la discipline et le bon ordre Â» ou de Â« prÃ©venir les infractions pÃ©nales . . Certes, comme le requÃ©rant l'a relevÃ©, ces dispositions ne mentionnent pas expressÃ©ment les â¢ visites . . Cependant, la Commission estime que le mot â¢ communications â¢ peut viser les visites personnelles, en plus des communications postales ou autres, et il ressort clairement du contexte qu'il est censÃ© les recouvrir dans le rÃ¨glement pÃ©nitentiaire . Les restrictions en cause en l'espÃ¨ce Ã©taient, de l'avis de la Commission . suffisamment prÃ©visibles Ã partir des dispositions susmentionnÃ©es (voir Silver et autres contre Royaume-Uni, rapport de la Commission, paragraphes 277-285 et 329) . La Commission ne juge pas nÃ©cessaire en l'occurrence de dÃ©cider d'une maniÃ¨re gÃ©nÃ©rale si les rÃ¨gles pertinentes, en particulier la limitation des visites Ã celles des proches parents ou amis, se justifient en vertu de l'article 8 . paragraphe 2 . Elle n'a pas pour tÃ¢che d'examiner la lÃ©gislation en cause in abstracto et elle doit, autant que possible, borner son examen d'une affaire Ã la maniÃ¨re dont la lÃ©gislation a Ã©tÃ© effectivement appliquÃ©e au requÃ©rant (voir, par exemple, Cour eur . DH . Affaire Marckx, SÃ©rie A . volume 31, page 13, paragraphe 27 ; Affaire Guzzardi . SÃ©rie A . volume 39, pp . 31-32, paragraphe 88) . La Commission admet que certaines limites au nombre des personnes qui peuvent rendre visite Ã un dÃ©tenu sous haute surveillance, tel le prÃ©sent requÃ©rant, peuvent Ã juste titre Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©es comme nÃ©cessaires, en vertu de l'article 8, paragraphe 2, â¢ Ã la dÃ©fense de l'ordre et Ã la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales Â« . Elle admet en outre que tel Ã©tait bien le but des restrictions en cause en l'espÃ¨ce . Tenant compte de la maniÃ¨re dont les dispositions pertinentes ont, dans l'ensemble, Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ©es au requÃ©rant, qui a un nombre important de visiteurs agrÃ©Ã©s, la Commission ne juge pas que les restrictions permanentes quant aux personnes qui peuvent rendre visite au requÃ©rant dÃ©passent ce que l'on pourrait considÃ©rer comme Â« nÃ©cessaire . Ã - 123 -
cette fin . Elle estime que, contrairement Ã ce que prÃ©tend le requÃ©rant . un Ã©quilibre raisonnable semble Ãªtre Ã©tabli entre les exigences de la sÃ©curitÃ© et la vie privÃ©e et familiale du requÃ©rant . En consÃ©quence, mÃªme Ã supposer que les limitations incriminÃ©es puissent Ãªtre vues comme une atteinte au droit du requÃ©rant au respect de sa vie privÃ©e, elles se justifiaient en vertu de l'article 8, paragraphe 2 . Cette partie de la requÃªte est donc manifestement mal fondÃ©e et irrecevable en application de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 de la Convention . 2 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint aussi d'une restriction continue Ã sa correspondance, dÃ©coulant de l'application de la rÃ¨gle interdisant la correspondance avec des personnes autres que des parents ou amis . En particulier, il se plaint de ne pas Ãªtre autorisÃ© Ã correspondre avec deux religieuses, So :ur P . et So_ur B ., et invoque l'article 8 de la Convention . La Commission note que cette partie de la requÃªte soulÃ¨ve sous l'angle de l'article 8 de la Convention des questions semblables Ã celles qu'elle a examinÃ©es dans l'Affaire Silver et autres contre Royaume-Uni (Rapport du 11 octobre 1980, paragraphes 327-335) . actuellement pendante devant la Cour . Cette partie de la requÃªte pose donc des problÃ¨mes qui appellent un examen au fond et doit Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable . 3 . La Commission a examinÃ© ensuite les griefs du requÃ©rant relatifs Ã la procÃ©dure devant la commission des visiteurs des prisons . Le requÃ©rant se plaint essentiellement que la commission des visiteurs aurait traitÃ© son cas de maniÃ¨re inÃ©quitable . Il allÃ¨gue en particulier qu'elle l'a traitÃ© alors qu'il ne se trouvait pas dans un Ã©tat mental ou Ã©molif convenable, qu'il n'a pas disposÃ© du temps et des facilitÃ©s nÃ©cessaires Ã la prÃ©paration de sa dÃ©fense et qu'il n'a pu citer des tÃ©moins, en particulier un directeur adjoint . Il invoque l'article 6 de la Convention . Il n'est pas contestÃ© que l'arrÃªt de la Court of Appeal dans l'Affaire St-Germain, prononcÃ© le 3 octobre 1978, a Ã©rigÃ© en rÃ¨gle du droit anglais que les sanctions disciplinaires de la commission des visiteurs des prisons sont susceptibles d'un recours judiciaire et peuvent Ãªtre annulÃ©es par une ordonnance de certiorari . Le Gouvernement soutient que puisque le requÃ©rant ne s'est pas prÃ©valu de ce recours, cette partie de la requÃªte est irrecevable pour non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes . Le requÃ©rant . tout en ne contestant pas maintenant qu'il pourrait obtenir une ordonnance de certiorari pour iniquitÃ© sÃ©rieuse et donc faire annuler la dÃ©cision, maintient que le fait que ce recours existe aujourd'hui est sans pertinence, puisqu'il n'existait pas Ã la date de l'introduction de sa requÃªte . La Commission estime qu'elle doit normalement trancher la question de savoir si les voies de recours internes ont Ã©tÃ© Ã©puisÃ©es en se fondant sur la situation qui lui est prÃ©sentÃ©e Ã la date de sa dÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© . Si Ã - 124 -
cette date il est clair que le requÃ©rant dispose ou disposait d'un recours interne, il faut tenir compte de l'existence de ce recours . Le recours du certiorari est ouvert au requÃ©rant depuis le 3 octobre 1978 au moins . MÃªme s'il Ã©tait incertain qu'il en disposÃ t avant que le procÃ¨s St-Germain eÃ»t rÃ©glÃ© la question, le requÃ©rant a manifestement eu la facultÃ© de s'en prÃ©valoir Ã tout moment depuis lors mais ne l'a pas fait . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ ce recours, s'il avait Ã©tÃ© couronnÃ© de succÃ¨s, aurait entraÃ®nÃ© l'annulation des constatations de culpabilitÃ© et des sanctions disciplinaires contre le requÃ©rant, la Commission estime qu'il s'agit d'un recours effectif et suffisant comparable par ses rÃ©sultats Ã l'appel d'une condamnation en matiÃ¨re pÃ©nale . Dans ces circonstances la Conimission estime que le requÃ©rant n'a pas satisfait Ã la condition de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes posÃ©e par l'article 26 de la Convention et que cette partie de la requÃªte est donc irrecevable en application de l'article 27, paragraphe 3 . 4 . La Commission a examinÃ© ensuite les g riefs du requÃ©rant tirÃ©s des articles 6 et 8 de la Convention et relatifs Ã son accÃ¨s Ã des conseils juridiques et Ã un tribunal . Le requÃ©rant se plaint en pa rt iculie r - du retard apportÃ© Ã lui donner accÃ¨s Ã des conseils juridiques Ã cause de l'application de la rÃ¨gle de . l'enquÃªte interne prÃ©alable - ; - du refus Ã l'autoriser Ã se soumettre Ã un examen mÃ©dical indÃ©pendant : - du refus, pendant un certain temps, de l'autoriser Ã s'entretenir sans tÃ©moin avec son avocat . La Commission estime que cette pa rt ie de la requÃªte soulÃ¨ve sous l'angle des articles 6 et 8 de la Convention des questions qui, dans une ce rt aine mesure, sont comparables Ã celles qui se posent dans l'Affaire Campbell qui lui est connexe ( RequÃªte NÂ° 7819/77) et qu'elle a dÃ©jÃ dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable et, pour ce qui est de la correspondance, Ã celles de l'Affaire Silver et autres contre Royaume-Uni, pendante devant la Cour . La prÃ©sente affaire pose une question supplÃ©mentaire relative au caractÃ¨re confidentiel de la consultation juridique, mais cette question est Ã©troitement liÃ©e aux autres . Dans ces circonstances, la Commission estime que cette pa rt ie de la requÃªte n'est pas manifestement mal fondÃ©e et . en l'absence d'autre motif d'irrecevabilitÃ©, elle doit donc Ãª tre dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable . 5 . La Commission a enfin examinÃ© le g ri ef du requÃ©rant tirÃ© de l'article 13 de la Convention et selon lequel il ne dispose d'aucun recours effectif quant aux griefs susmentionnÃ©s . Pour autant que ce grief vise celui qui a trait aux visites, la Commission estime qu'il n'a pas Ã©tÃ© dÃ©montrÃ© que les recours administratifs pÃ©nitentiaires ,
y compris en particulier une requÃªte adressÃ©e au Ministre de l'intÃ©rieur, seraient insuffisants aux fins de l'article 13, eu Ã©gard notamment au nombre de visiteurs que le requÃ©rant a pu faire agrÃ©er . Pour autant que ce grief vise l'absence de recours Ã propos de la procÃ©dure devant la commission des visiteurs des prisons, la Commission note que, comme elle l'a constatÃ© ci-dessus, le requÃ©rant a la facultÃ© de demander Ã la High Court un contrÃ´le judiciaire de la dÃ©cision dont il s'agit . Dans cette mesure . le grief du requÃ©rant tirÃ© de l'article 13 est donc ntanifestement mal fondÃ© et irrecevable en application de l'article 27 . paragraphe 2 de la Convention . En revanche, pour autant que le requÃ©rant se plaint de ne pas disposer d'un recours effectif quant Ã ses griefs tirÃ©s des articles 6 et 8 de la Convention, Ã propos de sa correspondance ainsi que de son accÃ¨s Ã un tribunal et Ã des conseils juridiques et mÃ©dicaux, la Commission estime que se posent sur le terrain de l'article 13 de la Convention des questions qui appellent un examen au fond . Cette partie du grief du requÃ©rant ne peut donc Ãªtre qualifiÃ©e de manifestement mal fondÃ©e . En l'absence de tout autre motif d'irrecevabilitÃ©, elle doit donc Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n
DÃCLARE RECEVABL E - les griefs du requÃ©rant tirÃ©s de l'article 8 de la Convention, relatifs Ã une restriction permanente de sa correspondance avec certaines personnes (par . 2 ci-dessus), et de l'article 13, relatifs Ã l'absence allÃ©guÃ©e d'un recours sur ce point (par . 5 ci-dessus) ; - les griefs du requÃ©rant tirÃ©s des articles 6 et 8 de la Convention, relatifs Ã son accÃ¨s Ã des conseils juridiques et Ã un tribunal (par . 4 ci-dessus), et de l'article 13, relatifs Ã l'absence allÃ©guÃ©e d'un recours sur ce point (par . S ci-dessus) .
Il . DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTE IRRECEVABLE POUR LE SURPLUS .
- 126 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 19/03/1981Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 47
 l'article 48
 l'article 27
 l'article 37
 l'article 37
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 61
 l'article 8
 L'article 8
 l'article 13
 l'article 6
 l'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 34
 l'article 33
 l'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 27
 l'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 6
 l'article 26
 l'article 27
 l'article 13
 l'article 13
 l'article 13
 l'article 27
 l'article 13
 l'article 8
 l'article 13
 l'article 13