Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19810507-833478
Timestamp: 2016-10-22 13:36:28+00:00

Document:
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; Partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8334/78Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1981-05-07;8334.78 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) DELAI RAISONNABLE, (Art. 6-1) DROITS ET OBLIGATIONS DE CARACTERE CIVILParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : AllemagneTexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 8334/78 X . v/the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMAN Y X . c/REPUBLIQUE FÃDÃRALE D'ALLEMAGN E DECISION of 7 May 1981 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 7 mai 1981 sur la recevabililÃ© de la requÃªte
Article 3 of the Convention : The obligation to comply with a court order issued by the criminal court to submit to a psychiatric examination, even though it implies on behalf of that court certain doubts on the mental state of health of the person concerned does not, as such, constitute degrading treatment. Article 5, paragraph I of the Convention : Threatening with detention in accordance with the !aw could not constitute a breach of Article 5 . However, threatening with arbitrary or unjustified detention can infringe the right to security of person . Article 8, peragreph I of the Conventio n a) The obligation to submit to a psychiatrlc examination constitutes an interference in the exercise of the right to respect for private life . b) Preserving in the files a report concerning an attempted suicide and photocopies of private documents comes within the scope of Article 8 of the Convention . Article 8, pera grsph 2 of the Conventio n a) The obligation for an accused to submit to a psychiatric examination forms part of the investigations to which the court if necessary must proceed and, as such . must be considered necessary for the prevention of crime. It is irrelevant in this respect at what stage of the proceedings it is ordered .
b) The court's making use of an old police report in order to assess the criminal responsibility of the accused may be considered necessary for the prevention of crime . Article 26 of the Convention : The person who was unaware, at the time when it was committed, of an act which causes him a prejudice, is not absolved from exercising available remedies as soon as he becomes aware of this act .
Article 3 de la Conventlon : Ne constitue pas . en soi, un traitentent dÃ©gradant. l'obligation imposÃ©e par le juge pÃ©nal de se soumettre Ã une expertise psychiatrique, alors mÃªme qu'elle implique de la part du juge certains doutes sur l'Ã©tat mental de l'intÃ©ressÃ©. Article 5, paragraphe l, de la Conventlon : La menace d'une dÃ©tention conforme Ã la loi ne saurait violer l'article 5 . Par contre . la menace d'une dÃ©tention arbitraire ou injustifiÃ©e peut porter atteinte au droit Ã la sÃ»retÃ© . AAlcle 8, paragraphe 1, de la Conventlo n a) L'obligation de se soumettre Ã une expertise psychiatrique est une ingÃ©rence dans l'exercice du droit au respect de la vie privÃ©e. b) RelÃ¨ve de l'article 8 la conservation dans les dossiers de police d'un rapport relatif Ã une tentative de suicide et de photocopies de documents de caractÃ¨re privÃ© . Article 8, paragraphe 2, de la Convention a) L'obligation faite Ã un inculpÃ© de se soumettre Ã une expertise psychiatrique fait partie des investigations auxquelles le juge, le cas Ã©chÃ©arrt . doit procÃ©der et . cornnte telle, doit Etre considÃ©rÃ©e comme nÃ©cessaire Ã la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales ; peu iniporte, Ã cet Ã©gard, lors de quelle phase de la procÃ©dure elle est prescrite.
b) L'usage par le_juge d'un ancien rapport de police utile Ã l'apprÃ©ciation de la responsabilitÃ© pÃ©nale de l'inculpÃ© peut Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ© comme nÃ©cessaire Ã la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales . Article 26 de la Convention : Cehti qui n'a pas eu connaissance . au moment oÃ¹ il a Ã©tÃ© accompli, d}tn acte qui lui fait tort, n'est pas dispensÃ© de tenter les recours disponibles au mornent ori il acquiert connaissance de cet acte .
(francais : voir p . 108 )
The applicanr . a lawyer, was submitted to criminal investigations for fraud . Considering that he formed the subject of machinations by the public prosecutor, he brought a hierarchical appeal against him and subsequently requested the institution of criminal proceedings against him . The applicant further filed objections against the indictment which had been drawn up against himself. The court then decided to obtain a psychiatric expert opinion on the applicant, in particular having learned through a police report. drawn up nine years earlier that the applicant had attempted suicide. The applicaru denied this . The report equally refened to certain documents which had been photocopied in the applicant's office while he was in hospital.
The Court of Appeal, on appeal of the applicant, confrrrned the court order for the psychiatric examination and the Constitutional Court also rejected an appeal by the applicant on this point .
The applicant first refused to submit to a psychiatric exrnination but urrder the threat of six weeks compulso ry committal to a nrenta l institution with a view to this exnminatiorr- finally surrendered. The expert corrcluded that the applicant had full crirniral responsibility . Some tinre later the applicant was given a suspetrded sentence of one year emprisonment .
THE LAW (Extract ) I . The applicant has first complained that the order for his psychiatric examination in connection with the criminal proceedings instituted against hint was unjustifled, in particular at the stage prior to the admission of the indictment . In this respect he alleges that he has been subjected to degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention and that there has been an interference with the right to the respect for his private life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention . The Commission considers, however, that the issue of a court order for the psychiatric examination of a person against whom criminal charges have been raised, even if it is taken at an early stage prior to the opening of the main proceedings, is a normal procedural decision which must be permitted whenever there are any doubts as to the criminal responsibility of the accused . It is true that such a measure presupposes certain doubts as the state of mind of (he person concerned and might for this reason alone cause him certain disadvantages such as throwing a doubt on his reputation and undermining the confidence of other persons in him, and in the particular case of a lawyer, the confidence of his clients . It is therefore understandable that a person affected by such a measure has an interest that it should not be taken unless objective circumstances prevailing at the relevant time so require . The Commission does not, however, consider that an order for a psychiatric examination in connection with criminal proceedings can as such amount to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention . Also in the particular case there is no indication that the treatment suffered by the applicant was in any way degrading . His complaint under Article 3 of the Convention must therefore be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the nteaning of Article 27, paragraph 2 of the Convention . 2 . As regards the alleged interference with the applicant's right to the respect of his private life (Article 8 of the Convention) a distinction must be drawn in the present case between a) the relevant court order itself and the measures taken for its execution, b) the court's use of a police report unconnected with the applicants's criminal case, and finally c) the preservatio n
- I05 -
of this report by the police, and its transmission to the court many years after the events recorded there . a) The Commission accepts that the court's decision to order the applicant' s psychiatric examination, and the measures taken for its execution, did in fact involve an interference with the applicant's right to the respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8(1) of the Convention . However, like other inquiries made in the context of criminal investigations which may also relate to the private life of the accused (and even of other persons) a psychiatric examination must be permitted as long as the criteria of Article 8 (2) of the Convention are met, i .e . if the measure in question is lawful and can reasonably be considered as necessary in a democratic society for any of the purposes enumerated in this provision . As it is the criminal court's duty, in the interest of the accused himself and for the protection of society, to investigate any circumstances which may be relevant for the assessment of the criminal responsibility of the accused, it must be accepted that the measures taken for this purpose are necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of crime, even if the investigated facts of the accused person's private life are not in themselves criminally relevant . If it was not particularly indicated, in the present case, to examine the applicant's criminal responsibility already prior to the opening of the trial proceedings (as the Court of Appeal expressly admitted), it is nevertheless clear that the court had to make a finding on this question at some stage of the proceedings . The moment it considered as appropriate for this is a matter of judicial expediency and cannot, in the Commission's opinion, make any difference as to the justification of the measure as such . A question as to the lawfulness does not arise in this case as the domestic proceedings have clarified that the court was legally entitled to order a psychiatric examination even during the committal proceedings . The Commission therefore concludes that the order for the applicant's psychiatric examination was as such justifled under Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Convention . b) Insofar as the applicant further complains in this context of the court's making use of a police report unconnected to the criminal case before it, the Commission considers that this, too, can be justified as a measure necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of crime . The criminal court apparently had no jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the procedure by which this information had been made available to it, because this was a matter for decision by the Administrative Court (see sub-paragraph c) below) . Nor could it simply disregard the police report submitted to it unless it considered that its contents were completely irrelevant to the criminal case before it . It was, however, believed that the data concerning the applicant's earlier private life contained in the report might at least indirectly be relevant as an element for the assessment of his criminal responsibility . In these circumstances there is no appearance that the court's use of the police report in question might itself have been unjustified under Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Convention . -106-
c) Insofar as the applicant complains that the police prepared a report on the incident of 1969 and kept it in a personal file in his name together with copies of certain private documents, the Commission is not required to examine the justification of the original action taken by the police because the applicant did not at the relevant time exhaust his domestic remedies and in any event did not lodge a complaint under the Convention within the six-months' time limit provided for in Article 26 . The only issue which can arise in this context is therefore the question of the justification of the preservation of the police file until the year 1978 and its transmission to the court at this time . This is indeed an issue of data protection which comes within the broad scope of Article 8 of the Convention . The Government have submitted that the applicant has failed to exhaust the domestic remedies in this respect because he did not turn to the responsible authority, the Munich Police Headquarters, in the first place nor file an action with the Administrative Court . The applicant objects that he could not be expected to use these remedies as he was unaware of the continued existence of the police report in question . The Commission notes, however, that the report was referred to in the Regional Court's decision of . . . March 1978, and that the applicant could at least from this moment avail himself of the reniedies indicated by the Government which must have been known to him as a lawyer and which, moreover, would have afforded him an effective protection if one takes into account the possibility of asking for an interlocutory injunction, which, if issued . would certainly have influenced the further conduct of the proceedings by the criminal courts . The applicant, however, limited himself to challenging the use of the police report by the criminal court and did not take the appropriate legal action against the police itself although it transpires from his various submissions to the court that it was in particular the police and the prosecution authorities about whom he was aggrieved because they had produced the file and transmitted it to the court . The Commission considers that in these circumstances the applicant cannot be considered as being absolved from having recourse to the above remedies, and for this reason it can only conclude that he failed to comply with the conditions of Article 26 of the Convention in relation to his above complaint . This complaint must accordingly be rejected under Article 27, paragraph 3 of the Convention . 3 . The applicant has further complained that his right to liberty and security of person (Art . 5) was violated by the court threatening him with detention if he did not undergo the psychiatric examination voluntarily . The Conimission observes, however, that there has been no actual deprivation of liberty, and that the applicant's right to security of person could only be infringed if he had been threatened with arbitrary or unjustified detention . The Commission considers that this was not the case here and that the above complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded .
RÃ©sumA des faits pertinents Le requÃ©rant, qui est avocat, a fait l'objet de poursuites pÃ©nales pour escroquerie. S'estimant l'objet d'une machination ourdie par un membre du parquet, il dÃ©posa contre lui une plainte hiÃ©rarchique puis une plainte pÃ©nale. Le requÃ©rant fit opposition Ã l'acte d'accusation dressÃ© contre lui. Le juge dÃ©cida alors de le soumettre Ã une expertise psychiatrique, notamment aprÃ¨s avoir eu connaissance d'un rapport de police Ã©tabli neuf ans plus tbt et dont il ressortait que le requÃ©rant aurait fait une tentative de suicide . Le requÃ©rant nie pareille tentative . Le rapport faisait Ã©galement Ã©ta( de certains documents qui auraient Ã©tÃ© photocopiÃ©s au cabinet du requÃ©rant durant un sÃ©jour de celui-ci Ã l'hÃ´pital. La cour d'appel, sur recours du requÃ©rant, confirma l'ordonnance d'expertise et la Cour constitutionnelle rejeta un recours du requÃ©rant sur ce point . Le requÃ©rant refusa d'abord de se soumettre Ã l'expertise psychiatrique mais, menacÃ© par le juge d'un internement de six semaines aux fins d'expertise, il finit par s'incliner. L'expert conclut Ã la pleine responsabilitÃ© pÃ©nale du requÃ©rant, lequel fut condarnnÃ© quelque temps plus tard Ã un an de prison avec sursis .
(TRADUCTION) EN DROIT (Extrait) 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint en premier lieu que l'ordonnance d'examen psychiatrique prise par le tribunal en liaison avec les poursuites pÃ©nales engagÃ©es contre lui ne se justifiait pas, notamment pendant la phase prÃ©cÃ©dant la mise en accusation . Il allÃ¨gue Ã cet Ã©gard un traitement dÃ©gradant contraire Ã l'article 3 de la Convention et une atteinte Ã son droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e, contrairement Ã l'article 8 de la Convention . La Commission estime toutefois que la dÃ©livrance par le tribunal d'une injonction de se soumettre Ã un examen psychiatrique Ã l'encontre d'une personne faisant l'objet d'accusations pÃ©nales, mÃªme si elle se situe trÃ¨s tÃ´t avant l'ouverture de l'audience de jugement, est une dÃ©cision de procÃ©dure normale qui doit Ãªtre admise chaque fois que pÃ¨sent des doutes sur la responsabilitÃ© pÃ©nale de l'accusÃ© . Ce genre de mesure suppose Ã©videmment l'existence de doutes quant Ã l'Ã©tat mental de l'intÃ©ressÃ© et peut, pour cette seule raison, entrainer certains inconvÃ©nients, par exemple, jeter une ombre sur la rÃ©putation de l'intÃ©ressÃ© ou saper la confiance d'autrui, ici celle des clients pour l'avocat dont il s'agit . Il est dÃ¨s Iors comprÃ©hensible qu'une personne touchÃ©e par une telle mesure a intÃ©rÃªt Ã ce que l'ordonnance ne soit prise que si des circonstances objectives l'exigent Ã l'Ã©poque des faits .
Cependant . aux yeux de la Commission, une ordonnance d'examen psychiatrique prononcÃ©e en liaison avec une poursuite pÃ©nale ne peut pas Ãªtre en soi l'Ã©quivalent d'un traitement dÃ©gradant au sens de l'a rt icle 3 de la Convention . En l'espÃ¨ce d'ailleurs, rien n'indique que le traitement imposÃ© au requÃ©rant fÃ»t aucunement dÃ©gradant . Le g ri ef que tire l'intÃ©ressÃ© de l'a rt icle 3 de la Convention doit donc Ãªtre rejetÃ© comme manifestement mal fondÃ©, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . 2 . Quant Ã l'atteinte allÃ©guÃ©e par le requÃ©rant au droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e (art . 8 de la Convention), il faut en l'espÃ¨ce distinguer entre a) l'ordonnance judiciaire en question et les mesures prises pour son exÃ©cution ; b) l'utilisation par le tribunal d'un rapport de police n'ayant aucun lien avec le dÃ©lit reprochÃ© au requÃ©rant, et enfin c) la conservation de ce rapport par la police et sa transmission au tribunal plusieurs annÃ©es aprÃ¨s les Ã©vÃ©nements qui y sont consignÃ©s . La Commission reconnait que la dÃ©cision du tribunal d'ordonner l'exame n .a psychiatrique du requÃ©rant et les mesures prises pour la faire appliquer supposaient bien une atteinte au droit du requÃ©rant au respect de sa vie privÃ©e . au sens de l'article 8, paragraphe 1, de la Convention . Cependant, tout comme les autres enquÃªtes qui, dans le contexte d'une instruction pÃ©nale, peuvent Ã©galement toucher Ã la vie privÃ©e de l'accusÃ© (et mÃªme de tiers), un examen psychiatrique peut Ãªtre autorisÃ© si les conditions posÃ©es Ã l'article 8, paragraphe 2, de la Convention sont rÃ©alisÃ©es, autrement dit si la mesure en question est conforme Ã la loi et peut raisonnablement Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme nÃ©cessaire, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, Ã l'un des objectifs Ã©numÃ©rÃ©s dans cette disposition . Comme le tribunal pÃ©nal a le devoir, dans l'intÃ©rÃªt mÃªme du prÃ©venu et pour la protection de la sociÃ©tÃ©, d'enquÃªter sur toute circonstance permettant d'apprÃ©cier la responsabilitÃ© pÃ©nale de l'intÃ©ressÃ©, il faut admettre que les mesures prises en ce sens sont nÃ©cessaires, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique . Ã la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales, mÃªme si les Ã©lÃ©ments de la vie privÃ©e de l'accusÃ© qui sont examinÃ©s n'ont en eux-mÃ©mes pas de lien avec l'infraction . Si, en l'espÃ¨ce, il n'Ã©tait pas particuliÃ¨rement indiquÃ© d'examiner la responsabilitÃ© pÃ©nale du requÃ©rant avant mÃªme d'avoir ouvert le procÃ¨s (comme la cour d'appel l'a expressÃ©ment reconnu), il n'en demeure pas moins Ã©vident que le tribunal devait, Ã un stade quelconque de la procÃ©dure, se prononcer sur la question . Le choix du moment jugÃ© opportun relÃ¨ve de la sagesse du tribunal et ne saurait, de l'avis de la Commission, faire aucune diffÃ©rence quant au bien-fondÃ© de la mesure elle-mÃªme . Il ne se pose en l'espÃ¨ce pas de question de rÃ©gularitÃ© puisque la procÃ©dure interne a montrÃ© que le tribunal Ã©tait habilitÃ© par la loi Ã ordonner un examen psychiatrique mÃªme pendant la phase de la mise en accusation . La Commission estime en consÃ©quence que l'ordonnance d'examen psychiatrique du requÃ©rant Ã©tait, comme telle, justifiÃ©e au regard de l'article 8, paragraphe 2, de la Convention .
b . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant se plaint en outre que le tribunal a utilisÃ© un rapport de police sans aucun lien avec l'affaire criminelle dont il Ã©tait saisi, la Commission estime aussi que cela peut se justifier comme une mesure nÃ©cessaire, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, Ã la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales . Le tribunal n'Ã©tait apparemment pas compÃ©tent pour examiner la rÃ©gularitÃ© de la procÃ©dure selon laquelle cette information lui avait Ã©tÃ© soumise, puisque cette question relÃ¨ve du tribunal administratif (voir cidessous c .) . Il ne pouvait pas non plus Ã©carter purement et simplement le rapport de police qui lui Ã©tait soumis, Ã moins qu'il ait considÃ©rÃ© que son contenu n'avait absolument rien Ã voir avec l'affaire criminelle portÃ©e devant lui . Il a toutefois estimÃ© que les renseignements figurant dans le rapport sur la vie privÃ©e du requÃ©rant pouvaient, indirectement du moins, servir Ã apprÃ©cier la responsabilitÃ© pÃ©nale de l'intÃ©ressÃ© . Dans ces conditions, rien ne montre que l'utilisation par le tribunal du rapport de police en question ait pu en soi Ã©tre injustifiÃ©e au regard de l'article 8, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . c . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant se plaint que la police a Ã©tabli sur l'incident de 1969 un rapport qu'elle a conservÃ© dans un dossier nominatif contenant copie de certains documents Ã caractÃ¨re privÃ©, la Commission n'est pas appelÃ©e Ã examiner le bien-fondÃ© de ces mesures prises Ã l'Ã©poque par la police, puisque le requÃ©rant n'a pas, au moment des faits, Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes Ã sa disposition et qu'il n'a du reste pas introduit de requÃªte, conformÃ©ment Ã la Convention, dans le dÃ©lai de six mois prÃ©vu Ã l'article 26 . Le seul point litigieux Ã© ventuel est donc ici celui de savoir s'il Ã©tait justifiÃ© que la police conse rve le dossier jusqu'en 1978, date oÃ¹ elle l'a transmis au t ribunal . Il y a lÃ une question de protection des donnÃ©es qui relÃ¨ve du vaste domaine de l'article 8 de la Convention . Le Gouvernement a soutenu que le requÃ©rant n'avait pas Ã cet Ã©gard Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes, puisqu'il ne s'Ã©tait pas d'abord ad ressÃ© au se rvice responsable . la direction de la police munichoise, et n'avait pas non plus introduit de recours auprÃ¨s du t ribunal administratif . Le requÃ©rant rÃ©plique qu'il n'Ã©tait pas censÃ© utiliser ces voies de recours, puisqu'il ne connaissait pas l'existence du rapport de police en question . La Commission relÃ¨ve cependant que le rapport ayant Ã©tÃ© Ã©voquÃ© dans la dÃ©cision du tribunal rÃ©gional en date du . . . mars 1978 . le requÃ©rant aurait pu, Ã part ir de ce moment-lÃ du moins, se prÃ©valoir des recours indiquÃ©s par le Gouvernement et qu'en tant qu'avocat il devait d'ailleurs connaÃ®t re . Ces recours lui auraient du reste fourni une bonne protection vu la possibilitÃ© de demander une ordonnance de rÃ©fÃ©rÃ© qui, si elle avait Ã©tÃ© dÃ©fivrÃ©e, aurait ce rtainement influÃ© sur le dÃ©roulement ultÃ© ri eur de la procÃ©dure devant les tribunaux pÃ©naux . Cependant, le requÃ©rant s'est bornÃ© Ã contester l'utilisation du rapport de police par le tribunal pÃ©nal sans engager l'action approp riÃ©e contre la police elle-mÃªme, alors qu'il resso rt de ses exposÃ©s au tribunal que c'est surtout de la police et du parquet qu'il se plaignait, pour avoir fourni l e
dossier au tribunal . La Commission estime que, dans ces conditions, le requÃ©rant ne peut pas @tre considÃ©rÃ© comme ayant Ã©tÃ© dispensÃ© de faire usage des voies de recours prÃ©citÃ©es . Aussi doit-elle dÃ©cider que ce grief, faute de satisfaire aux conditions de l'article 26 de la Convention, doit Ãªtre rejetÃ© conformÃ©ntent Ã l'article 27, paragraphe 3, de la Convention . 3 . Le requÃ©rant s'est plaint en outre que son droit Ã la libertÃ© et Ã la sÃ»retÃ© de la personne (art . 5) a Ã©tÃ© enfreint par le tribunal, qui l'a menacÃ© de d:lention s'il ne se souniettait pas de son plein grÃ© Ã l'examen psychiatrique . La Commission remarque cependant qu'il n'y a pas eu en fait privation de libertÃ© et que le requÃ©rant ne pouvait voir enfreint le droit Ã la sGretÃ© que s'il avait Ã©tÃ© menacÃ© d'une dÃ©tention arbitraire ou injustifiÃ©e . La Commission estime que tel n'Ã©tant pas le cas en l'espÃ¨ce, ce grief est manifestement mal fondÃ© .
- ]ll -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 07/05/1981Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 5
 l'article 8
 l'article 3
 l'article 8
 l'article 27
 l'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 8
 l'article 26
 l'article 8
 l'article 26
 l'article 27