Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19851017-998482
Timestamp: 2017-04-25 23:07:23+00:00

Document:
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9984/82Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1985-10-17;9984.82 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) DROITS ET OBLIGATIONS DE CARACTERE CIVIL, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLE, (Art. 6-1) TRIBUNAL IMPARTIALParties : Demandeurs : M.Défendeurs : FRANCETexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE N" 9984/82 M . v/FRANC E M . c/FRANC E DECISION on 17 October 1985 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 17 octobre 1985 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©t e
Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention : In a case concerning France, these prorisions are not applicable ro disciplinary proceedings in the armed forces because of that Srate's reservation . Article /3 of the Convention : 7he provision cannot be invoked separately . It is not applicable where the main complaint is outside the scope of the Convention . Article 26 of the Convention : In France, a soldier who alleges that a disciplinary sanction againsr hint is in violation of Anicles 8, 9 . 10 and / l of the Corrvention must nmke use of his right to make a complaint, as provided for by the Decree of 28 July 1 975 prescribing the General Army Disciplinary Regulations . /f there is doubt as to the effeciiveness of a local remedy, it should be submitted ro rhe couns. A rt icles 5 et 6 de la Convention : S'agissant de la France, dispositions inapplicables aua procÃ©dures disciplinaires dans les armÃ©es, vu la rÃ©serve faite par cet Etar . Article 13 de la Convention : Ne peut Ã©tre invoquÃ© isolÃ©ment . Est inapplicable lorsque le grief principal est en dehors du champ d'application de la Convention . Arficie 26 de la Convention : En France, le militaire qui se plaint qu'une sanction disciplinaire dont il a fair l'objet a violÃ© les anicles 8 . 9, /0 er l/ de la Convention doit avoir exercÃ© son droit de rÃ©clamation, conformÃ©ment au DÃ©cret du 28 juillet 1975 ponant rÃ¨glement de discipline gÃ©nÃ©rale dans les armÃ©es . S'il existe un doute sur l'efficacitÃ© d'un recours interne, c'est lÃ un point qui doit Ã©tre soumis aux tribunaux. 54
(English : see p . 60)
Le requÃ©rant, de nationalitÃ© franÃ§aise, est nÃ© en 1958 Ã L . et est domiciliÃ© Ã A . Pour la procÃ©dure devant la Commission, il est reprÃ©sentÃ© par Me Jean-Pierre Mignard, Me Francis Teitgen et Me Guy Paris, avocats au barreau de Paris . Les faits de la cause, tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© exposÃ©s par les parties, peuvent se rÃ©sumer contnte suit : Le requÃ©rant qui, au moment de l'introduction de la requ2te, effectuait ses obligations du service militaire, Ã©tait en garnison au 60^ rÃ©giment d'infanterie Ã Lons-leSaunier (Jura) . Durant une permission, il participa en uniforme Ã la manifestation traditionnelle du 1^ 1 mai 1982 et, Ã son retour Ã la caseme- fut trouvÃ© le 3 mai 1982 en possession de tracts Ã©manant d'un -ComitÃ© de Soldats du (*~ R .I . - . Le requÃ©rant fut alors conduit dans des locaux spÃ©cialement affectÃ©s aux arrÃ©ts oÃ¹ il passa la nuit . DÃ¨s cet instant, il signala qu'il refuserait de s'alimenter tant qu'il n'aurait pu avoir la visite de son avocat . Par ailleurs, il refusa de rÃ©pondre aux questions qui lui furent posÃ©es le jour suivant par des personnes appartenant au Bureau de Protection et de SÃ©curitÃ© DÃ©fense et sollicita la visite d'un mÃ©decin . Le capitaine niÃ©decin se dÃ©pÃªcha alors auprÃ¨s de lui afin d'Ãªtre informÃ© des misons du refus de s'alimenter . Par dÃ©cision du 5 mai 1982, le gÃ©nÃ©ral commandant la 7Â° Division blindÃ©e infligea au requÃ©rant une punition disciplinaire de trente jours d'arrÃ©ts de rigueur pour incitation au dÃ©sordre . Le 7 mai 1982, aprÃ¨s un nouvel interrogatoire de la part des agents du Bureau de Protection et de SÃ©curitÃ© DÃ©fense, une nouvelle punition de vingt jours d'arr@ts simples lui fut infligÃ©e par le colonel commandant ledit rÃ©giment pour insubordination, le requÃ©rant ayant participÃ© Ã la manifestation du tÂ°' mai Ã Paris . Ces deux punitions furent confondues et seule la premiÃ©re fut exÃ©cutÃ©e . Le 11 mai 1982, le requÃ©rant fut transfÃ©rÃ© au 159Â° rÃ©giment d'infanterie alpine Ã BrianÃ§on (Hautes-Alpes) . Le IS mai 1982, l'un des conseils du requÃ©rant demanda au chef de corps l'autorisation de communiquer librement avec son client, Ã l'effet d'examiner avec ce dernier les recours Ã©ventuels conare la dÃ©cision portant atteinte Ã sa libertÃ© individuelle . L'autoritÃ© militaire aurait refusÃ© cette communication au motif que l'intÃ©ressÃ© n'avait pas besoin d'avocat . Le 4 juin 1982, le requÃ©rant assigna en rÃ©fÃ©rÃ© le lieutenant-colonel V ., chef de corps du 159Â° rÃ©giment d'infanterie alpine Ã BrianÃ§on, par-devant le prÃ©sident du tribunal de grande instance de Gap afin que, bien que dÃ©tenu dans les locaux disciplinaires, il puisse communiquer librement et immÃ©diatement avec son avocat .
Par dÃ©cision du 24 juin 1982, le prÃ©sident de ce tribunal, considÃ©rant qu'Ã l'audience de rÃ©fÃ©rÃ© le conseil du requÃ©rant avait dÃ©clarÃ© se dÃ©sister de l'action, devenue sans objet du fait de la cessation de la mesure disciplinaire en date du 22 juin 1982, ordonna la radiation de l'affaire .
GRIEF S 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint tout d'abord qu'il s'est vu refuser par les autoritÃ©s militaires la libre communication avec un avocat de son choix aprÃ¨s sa dÃ©tention, en violation des articles 5 et 6 de la Convention, et notamment du paragraphe 3 c) dÃ© ce demier article . 2 . Le requÃ©rant allÃ¨gue en second lieu que les voies de recours ouvertes aux soldats disciplinairement sanctionnÃ©s, Ã des peines privatives de libertÃ© ou non, sont inefftcaces : - dans la mesure oÃ¹ la jurisprudence constante dÃ©clare tout recours irrecevable : - aussi longtemps que les soldats ne pourront bÃ©nÃ©ficier de l'assistance d'un avocat, ils ne pourront de maniÃ¨re utile exercer leur droit Ã la dÃ©fense . Il invoque Ã cet Ã©gard l'article 5 par . 4 combinÃ© avec l'article 13 de la Convention . 3 . En outre, le requÃ©rant se plaint d'une violation des articles 8, 9, 10 et 11 de la Convention . En particulier, il fait valoir que : - la possession et la distribution d'Ã©crits qui sont Ã l'origine de l'une des sanctions disciplinaires dont il a fait l'objet, constituent, Ã ses yeux, l'une des modalitÃ©s de manifestation collective d'une conviction ; - pendant la pÃ©riode de sa privation de libertÃ© la lecture du journal et la dÃ©tention de tout poste de radio lui furent interdites, n'ayant pu ainsi recevoir aucune information Ã©manant de l'extÃ©rieur : - il a Ã©tÃ© Ã©galement sanctionnÃ© pour avoir participÃ© Ã la manifestation du 1Â°' mai alors mÃªme que cette manifestation Ã©tait autorisÃ©e et ne pouvait pas Ã¨tre assimilÃ©e Ã une menace contre l'ordre public franÃ§ais .
EN DROI T I . Le requÃ©rant se plaint tout d'abord qu'il s'est vu refuser par les autoritÃ©s militaires la libre communication avec un avocat de son choix aprÃ¨s sa dÃ©tention, et invoque Ã cet Ã©gard les articles 5 et 6 de la Convention et notamment le paragraphe 3 c) de ce dernier article .
L'anicle 5 par . 1 de la Convention garantit Ã toute personne le droit Ã la libertÃ© et Ã la sÃ¹retÃ© et l'anicle 5 par . 4 dispose que : -Toute personne privÃ©e de sa libertÃ© par arrestation ou dÃ©tention a le droit d'introduire un recours devant un tribunal, afin qu'il statue Ã bref dÃ©lai sur la lÃ©galitÃ© de sa dÃ©tention et ordonne sa libÃ©ration si la dÃ©tention est illÃ©gale .+ L'erticle 6 par . I de la Convention garantit Ã toute personne le droit Ã un procÃ©s Ã©quitable et l'anicle 6 par . 3 c) stipule que : -Tout accusÃ© a droit notamment Ã . . . se dÃ©fendre lui-mÃªme ou avoir l'assistance d'un dÃ©fenseur de son choix . . Toutefois, la Commission relÃ¨ve qu'au moment oÃ¹ la Convention fut ratifiÃ©e par le Gouvernemem franÃ§ais, ce dernier a fait une rÃ©serve au titre de l'article 64 concernant ces articles . Le texte de cette rÃ©serve est libellÃ© comme suit : -En dÃ©posant cet instrument de ratification, le Gouvemement de la RÃ©publique, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 64 de la Convention, Ã©met une rÃ©serve concernant : 1 . Les articles 5 et 6 de cette Convention en ce sens que ces articles ne sauraient faire obstacle Ã l'application des dispositions de l'article 27 de la Loi N" 72-662 du 13 juillet 1972 portant statut gÃ©nÃ©ral des militaires, relatives au rÃ©gime disciplinaire dans les armÃ©es, ainsi qu'Ã celles de l'article 375 du Code de justice militaire .
L'article 27 de la Loi N" 72-662 du 13 juillet 1972 est libellÃ© comme suit : - Les militaires sont soumis Ã la Loi pÃ©nale du droit commun ainsi qu'aux dispositions du Code de justice militaire . Sans prÃ©judice des sanctions pÃ©nales qu'elles peuvent entrainer, les fautes commises par les militaires les exposent : - Ã des punitions disciplinaires qui sont fixÃ©es par le rÃ©glement de discipline gÃ©nÃ©rale dans les armÃ©es ; - Ã des sanctions professionnelles prÃ©vues par dÃ©cret qui peuvent comporter le retrait partiel ou total, temporaire ou dÃ©finitif, d'une qualification professionnelle ; - Ã des sanctions statutaires qui sont Ã©numÃ©rÃ©es par les articles 48 et 91 ci-aprÃ¨s . -
L'article 375 du Code de justice militaire dispose que : - Les infractions aux rÃ¨glements relatifs Ã la discipline sont laissÃ©es Ã la rÃ©pression de l'autoritÃ© militaire et punies de peines disciplinaires qui, lorsqu'elles sont privatives de libertÃ©, ne peuvent excÃ©der soixante jours . L'Ã©chelle des peines disciplinaires est fi xÃ©e par dÃ©cret .-
Il en dÃ©coule que les a rt icles 5 et 6 de la Convention ne sauraient entraver l'application des dispositions prÃ©vues par la lÃ©gislation nationale concernant le rÃ©gime disciplinaire dans les armÃ©es et les procÃ©dures en matiÃ¨re de discipline militaire . La Commission estime donc que cette matiÃ©re se situe en-dehors du champ d'application de ces articles tels qu'ils ont Ã© tÃ© acceptÃ©s par le Gouvemement franÃ§ais . Il s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃªte est incompatible avec les dispositions de la Convention et doit Ã©tre rejetÃ©e conformÃ©mem Ã l'a rt icle 27 par . 2 de la Convention . 2 . Le requÃ©rant soutient en outre que, dans la mesure oÃ¹ les voies de recours ouve rt es aux soldats disciplinairement sanctionnÃ©s sont inef fi caces, il y a violation de l'article 13 combinÃ© avec l'a rt icle 5 par . 4 de la Convention . L'a rt icle 13 reconnaÃ®t Ã toute personne dont les droits et libe rtÃ©s garantis par la Convention ont Ã©tÃ© violÃ©s le droit Ã un recours effectif devant une instance nationale . La Commission vient d'examiner les g ri efs tirÃ©s de l'a rt icle 5 de la Convention . A cet Ã©gard, elle a estimÃ© que ces griefs se situent en dehors du champ d'application de la Convention . Il s'ensuit que l'a rt icle 13 n'est pas non plus d'application en l'espÃ¨ce . La Commission se rÃ©fere sur ce point Ã sa jurispmdence (cf. par exemple, NÂ° 8142/78, dÃ©c . 10 .10 .79, D .R . 18 pp . 88 . 99 ; NÂ° 8782/79, dÃ©c . 10 .7 .81 D .R . 25 pp . 243 . 247) . 3 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint Ã© galement d'une violation des articles 8, 9 . 10 et 11 de la Convention . Il fait valoir notamment que la possession et la distribution d'Ã©crits qui sont Ã l'origine de l'une des sanctions disciplinaires dont il a fait l'objet constituent l'une des modalitÃ©s de manifestation collective d'une conviction ; que pendant la pÃ©riode de sa privation de libe rt Ã© la lecture du journal et la dÃ©tention de tout poste de radio lui furent interdites ; et qu'il a Ã©tÃ© Ã©galement sanctionnÃ© pour avoir pa rt icipÃ© Ã la manifestation du 1Â° 1 mai alors mÃ©me que cette manifestation Ã©tait autorisÃ©e et ne pouvait pas Ã©tre assimilÃ©e Ã une menace contre l'ordre public . Toutefois, la Commission estime pouvoir se dispenser de se prononcer sur la question de savoir si les faits allÃ©guÃ©s par le requÃ©rant rÃ©vÃ©lent l'apparence d'une violation de ces dispositions . En effet, aux termes de l'a rt icle 26 de la Convention, Â« la Commission ne peut Ã© tre saisie qu'aprÃ©s l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes . . . . Dans la prÃ©sente affaire, la Commission relÃ¨ve que, dans la mesure oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant se plaint que les punitions disciplinaires dont il a fait l'objet ont po rtÃ© atteinte Ã ses droits et libe rt Ã©s garantis par les dispositions prÃ©citÃ©es, il lui Ã©tait loisible d'exercer le droit de rÃ©clamation, conformÃ©ment aux a rt icles 13 et 33 du DÃ©cret du 28 juillet 1975 port ant rÃ©glement de discipline gÃ©nÃ©rale dans les armÃ©es .
En particulier, l'article 13 dispose que : -Tout ntilitaire qui estime avoir Ã se plaindre d'une mesure prise Ã son encontre peut, par la voie hiÃ©rarchique, demander Ã @tre entendu par l'autoritÃ© immÃ©diatement supÃ©rieure Ã celle qui a pris la mesure ou lui adresser une rÃ©clamation Ã©crite . Cette autoritÃ© entend l'intÃ©ressÃ© et examine sa rÃ©clamation . S'il n'obtient pas satisfaction, l'intÃ©ressÃ© doit prÃ©ciser s'il maintient ou non sa rÃ©clamation . Dans l'affirmative, elle doit Ãªtre transmise Ã l'autoritÃ© supÃ©rieure . Par transmissions successives et aussi rapides que possible, accompagnÃ©e chaque fois d'un avis motivÃ©, la rÃ©clamation peut Ã¨tre portÃ©e jusqu'au ministre chargÃ© des armÃ©es . . . La Contmission relÃ¨ve notantment que cene disposition n'exige pas que la rÃ©clamation soit prÃ©sentÃ©e par le ministÃ¨re d'un avocat . Le requÃ©rant ne saurait donc se plaindre que, faute de pouvoir communiquer avec son conseil, il n'a pas pu dÃ©poser un recours hiÃ©rarchique . Par ailleurs, la Commission note que le requÃ©rant se plaint que les voies de recours ouvertes aux soldats disciplinairement sanctionnÃ©s sont inefficaces . Sur ce point, la Conimission estime que la voie prÃ©citÃ©e Ã©tait offerte au requÃ©rant par l'ordre juridique franÃ§ais et qu'il Ã©tait du devoir de l'intÃ©ressÃ© de la tenter . La Commission rappelle ici sa jurisprudence selon laquelle â¢ s'il existe un doute sur l'efficacitÃ© d'un recours inteme, c'est lÃ un point qui doit Ãªtre soumis aux tribunaux intemes euxm@nies- (cf . NÂ° 6271/73, dÃ©c . 13 .5 .76, D .R . 6 p . 62) . En l'espÃ¨ce, la Commission relÃ¨ve que le requÃ©rant n'a fait aucune rÃ©clamation . Il n'a donc pas satisfait Ã la condition relative Ã l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, au sens de l'anicle 26 de la Convention . En consÃ©quence, le restant de la requÃªte doit Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e irrecevable par application de l'a rt icle 27 par . 3 de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commission DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTEIRRECEVABLE .
(fRANSLATION)
THE FACT S The applicant, a French national, was born at L . in 1958 and lives at A . In the proceedings before the Commission he is represented by Mr . Jean-Pierre Mignard, Mr . Francis Teitgen and Mr . Guy Paris, barristers practising in P ar is . The facts of the case as submitted by the pa rt ies may be summarised as follows : At the time of introducing his application the applicant was performing his milita ry serv ice on garrison duty with the 60th Infant ry Regiment at Lons-le-Saunier (Jura) . When on leave he took pa rt in uniform in the traditional May Day demonstration in 1982 and on returning to barracks was discovered on 3 May 1982 to be in possession of tracts originating from a "Soldiers' Committee of the 60th Infant ry Regiment" . The applicant was then taken to a special arrest cell where he passed the night . He immediately stated that he would refuse to eat until he had been visited by his lawyer . He also refused to answer the questions put to him the following day by members of the Defence . Security and Protection Office and asked to be examined by a doctor . A captain of the medical corps then visited him to discover why he refused to eat . By a decision of 5 may 1982 the General commanding the 7th Armoured Division imposed a disciplinary punishment of 30 days' strict arrest for inciting disorder . On 7 May 1982, after furt her interrogation by members of the Defence, Security and Protection Office, a fu rther punishment of 20 days' arrest was imposed by the Colonel commanding the regiment for insubordination because the applicant had taken pan in the May Day demonstration in Paris . The two punishments were treated as concurrent and only the first actually enforced . On I I May 1982 the applicant was transferred to the 150th Alpine Infantry Regiment at BrianÃ§on (Hautes-Alpes) . On 28 May 1982 one of the applicant's lawyers applied to the Head of the unit for authority to communicate freely with his client with a view to discussing with him the possible remedies against the decision depriving him of his liberty . It is alleged that the military authorities refused this communication on the ground that the applicant did not need a lawyer . On 4 June 1982 the applicant summoned Lieutenant-Colonel V ., the officer commanding the 159th Alpine Infantry Regiment at BrianÃ§on, to attend urgent proceedings before the President of the Gap Regional Court, applying for an order that, although subject to disciplinary detention, he should be allowed to communicate freely and immediately with his lawyer .
By decision of 14 June 1982 the President of the Court, in view of the fact that at the hearing the applicant's lawyer had declared that he withdrew his application (which had become pointless owing to the termination of the disciplinary measure on 22 June 1982), ordered the case be struck off the list .
COMPLAINT S I . The applicant complains, first, that the military authorities refused to grant him free communication with lawyer of his choice after his detention, which was a violation of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention, and in particular Anicle 6 para . 3 (c) . 2 . He alleges secondly that the reniedies available to soldiers subjected to discplinary sanctions, whether in the form of deprivation of liberty or otherwise, are ineffect ive : - in so far as the established case-law declares any appeal inadmissible ; - as long as soldiers cannot receive the assistance of counsel they cannot effectively exercise their right to take part in proceedings . In this connection he relies on Article 5 para . 4 combined with Article 13 of the Convention . 3 . Furthermore the applicant complains of a violation of Anicles 8, 9 . 10 and I I of the Convention . In particular he argues that : - the possession and distribution of the documents which gave rise to one of the disciplinary sanctions to which he was subjected constitute in his eyes one of the means of collectively expressing one's convictions ; - during the period of his deprivation of liberty he was not allowed to read a paper or use a radio receiver and was thus unable to receive any information from outside : - he was also punished for having taken part in a May Day demonstration even though this demonstration was authorised and could not be considered a threat to French public order .
THE LAW The applicant complains first that the military authorities refused to allow him 1. to comntunicate with a lawyer of his choice after his detention . He relies in this respect on Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention and in particular Article 6 para . 3(c) .
Article 5 para . I of the Convention guarantees everyone the right to liberty and security of the person and Article 5 para . 4 provides that : "Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful . " Article 6 para . I of the Convention guarantees everyone the right to a fair trial and Article 6 para . 3 (c) provides that : "Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights : . . . to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing . " However, the Commission notes that when the Convention was ratified by the French Government the latter made a reservation under Article 64 relating to these Articles . The text of this reservation is worded as follows : "In depositing this instrument of ratification, the Government of the Republic, in accordance with Article 64 of the Convention, makes a reservation in respect of : 1 . Articles 5 and 6 thereof, to the effect that those Articles shall not hinder the application of the provisions governing the system of discipline in the armed forces contained in Section 27 of Act No . 72-662 of 13 July 1972, determining the general legal status of military servicemen, nor of the provisions of Article 375 of the Code of Military Justice .
Section 27 of Act No . 72-662 of 13 July 1972 reads as follows : "Soldiers shall be subject to the ordinary criminal law and also to the provisions of the Code of Military Justice . Without prejudice to the criminal sanctions which may be imposed under these provisions faults commiued by soldiers shall render them liable : - to the disciplinary sanctions which are laid down by the General Army Disciplinary Regulations : - professional sanctions prescribed by decree which may involve the partial or total, temporary or final deprivation of a professional qualification ; - to the statutory sanctions specified in Sections 48 and 91 below . " Article 375 of the Code of Milita ry Justice provides that : "Offences against the disciplina ry regulations shall be dealt with by the military authorities and punishable by disciplinary sanctions which, it they involve deprivation of liberty, may not exceed 60 days . The scale of disciplinary sanctions shall be fixed by decree . " 62
It follows that Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention may not constitute an obstacle to the application of the provisions of the national legislation on the system of army discipline and the procedures relating to military discipline . The Commission therefore considers that this subject-matter lies outside the scope of these Articles in the form in which they have been accepted by the French Government . It follows that this part of the application is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention and must be dismissed under Article 27 para . 2 of the Convention . 2 . The applicant further argues that in so far as the remedies available to soldiers subjected to disciplinary sanctions are ineffective there is a violation of Article 13 combined with Article 5 para . 4 of the Convention . Article 13 confers on everyone whose rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention have been violated the right to an effective remedy before a national authority . The Commission has just exaniined the complaints based on Article 5 of the Convention and has come to the conclusion that these complaints lay outside the scope of the Convention . It follows that Article 13, too, cannot be applied in the present case . The Commission refers on this point to its case-law (cf . e .g . No . 8142/78, Dec . 10 .10 .79, D .R . 18 pp . 88 . 93 ; No . 8782/79, Dec . 10 .7 .81, D .R . 25 pp . 243, 251) . 3 . The applicant also complains of a violation of Articles 8 . 9 . 10 and I I of the Convenlion . He argues in particular that the possession and distribution of the documents which were the cause of one of the disciplinary sanctions to which he was subjected constitute a manner of collectively expressing a conviction ; that during the period of his deprivation of freedom he was prohibited from reading a newspaper or having a radio receiver ; and that he was punished for having taken part in a May Day dentonstration even though this demonstration was authorised and could not be considered as a threat to public order . However the Commission considers that it is not required to reach a decision on whether the facts alleged by the applicant disclose any appearance of a violation of these provisions as, under Article 26 of the Convention, "the Commission may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted . . . . . . In the present case the Commission notes that in so far as the applicant complains Ihat the disciplinary sanction to which he was subjected infringed the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the above-cited provisions he was entitled to enter a complaint under paragraphs 13 and 33 of the Decree of 28 July 1975 prescribing the General Army Disciplinary Regulations .
In particular, paragraph 13 provides that : "Any soldier who considers himself entitled to complain of a measure taken against him may through the established channels apply to be heard by the authority immediately superior to the one which took the measure against him or send the former authority a written complaint . This authority shall hear the person in question and examine his complaint . If he does not obtain satisfaction the person in question shall state whether or not he maintains his complaint . If he does so, the complaint must be sent to the superior authority . By successive references to higher authorities and as rapidly as possible, and accompanied in each case by a statement of reasons, the complaint may finally be laid before the Minister responsible for the Armed Force s The Commission notes in particular that this provision does not require that the complaint should be presented through a lawyer . The applicant cannot therefore complain that because he was unable to communicate with his lawyer he had not been able to appeal to the superior authorities . Furthermore the Commission notes that the applicant complains that the remedies available to soldiers subject to disciplinary sanctions are ineffective . On this point the Commission considers that the above-cited remedies were made available to the applicant by the French legal systelm and that it was his duty to make use of them . The Commission recalls its case-law to the effect that "if there is a doubt about the effectiveness of a local remedy it should be submitted to the courts" (cf. No . 6271/73, Dec . 13 .5 .76, D .R . 6 p . 62) . In the present case the Commission notes that the applicant made no complaint . He has therefore failed to satisfy the condition requi ri ng the exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Anicle 26 of the Convention . It follows that the rest of the application must be declared inadmissible under Article 27 para . 3 of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
64Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 17/10/1985Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 5
 l'article 13
 l'article 64
 l'article 64
 l'article 27
 l'article 375

L'article 27

L'article 375
 l'article 13
 l'article 13