Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19791214-850079
Timestamp: 2016-10-21 16:49:14+00:00

Document:
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8500/79Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1979-12-14;8500.79 Analyses : (Art. 35-1) EPUISEMENT DES VOIES DE RECOURS INTERNESParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : SUISSETexte : APPLICATIQN/REQUETE NÂ° 8500/7 9 X . v/SWITZERLAN D X . c/SUISS E DECISION of 14 December 1979 on the admissibility of the Ã¢pplication DÃCISION du 14 dÃ©cembre 1979 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ¨t e
Articfe 4, paragraph 3 (a) of the Convention : Juvenile delinquent compefled to work during his placement under observation, in a closed institution . Question whether this work was that "required to be done in theordinary course of detention". Article 5, paragraph 1(d) of the Convention : A juvenile, accused of a number of offences placed in a closed institution for observation and the drawing up of a psycho-medical expert report . Lawful detention in accordance wirh a procedure prescribed by law . Article 8 of the Convention : Juvenile delinquent separated from his fainily in order to be placed under observation in a closed ward . Interference necessary for the prevention of disorder or crime. A rticle 14 of the Convention, in conjunction with Articfe 4 of the Convention : It is not dlscriminatory to require a juvenile delinquent placed under observation to work, whereas adults detained on remand are not so required.
Arl/cle 4, paragraphe 3, li1t . a, de la donvention : Mineur dÃ©finquant astreint au travail durant sa mise en observation en mifieÃ» fermÃ© . Examen du point de savoir si ce travail Ã©tait "requis normalement" . Article 5, paragraphe 1, litt . d, de fa Convention : Mineur, prÃ©venu dÃ¨ diverses infractions placÃ© en Ã© tablissement fermÃ© en vue de son observation et de f'Ã©tabtissement d'un rapport d'expertise psycho-mÃ©dicale. DÃ©tention rÃ©guliÃ¨re et conformÃ© aux votÃ©s fÃ©gafes. Article 8 de la Convention : Mineur dÃ©finquant sAparÃ© de sa famille pour Ãªtre p/acÃ© en observation en milieufermÃ© . IngÃ©rence nÃ©cessaire Ã la dÃ©fense de l'ordre et Ã la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales .
Artic% 14 de la Convention, combinÃ© avec l'article 4 de la Convention : ll n'est pas discriminatoire d'astreindre au travail un mineur dÃ©linquant placÃ© en observation, alors que les adultes en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive ne sont pas soumis Ã pareille obligation .
(English : see p. 244 )
Les faits de la cause peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme sui t Le requÃ©rant, de nationalitÃ© suisse, est nÃ© le . . . 1962 . II est reprÃ©sentÃ© par son pÃ©re' qui a donnÃ© Ã M . Minelli mandat d'introduire la prÃ©sente requÃ©te devant la Commission . Le requÃ©rant, alors 9gÃ© de 15 ans, faisait en octobre 1977 l'objet d'une instruction pÃ©nale IStrafuntersuchungl pour divers dÃ©lits (vols, infractions au code de la route) . L'annÃ©e prÃ©cÃ©dente le Tribunal de la Jeunesse (Jugendgericht) du district de M . (Zurich) avait dÃ©jÃ constatÃ© Ã sa charge divers fails constitutifs de vols et autres dÃ©lits et ordonnÃ© une assistance Ã©ducative . Au cours de cette instruction, le procureur de la jeunesse (Jugendanwaltschaft) estima nÃ©cessaire de placer l'adolescent en observation dans un centre spÃ©cialisÃ© Ã B en vue d'expliquer son comportement, eu Ã©gard notamment au fait que les mesures d'assistance Ã©ducative prises antÃ©rieurement Ã©taient demeurÃ©es sans effet . Il prit une dÃ©cision dans ce sens le . . . octobre 1977, en application de l'article 380 du code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale du canlon de ZÃ¼rich . Comme il lui paraissait prÃ©visible que cette mise en observation devrait durer plus d'un mois, le procureur demanda au PrÃ©sident du Tribunal de la Jeunesse le . . . novembre 1977, d'en autoriser la prolongation pour cinq mois, jusqu'au . . . avril 1978 . Par dÃ©cision du mÃªme jour, le PrÃ©sident du Tribunal de la Jeunesse fit droit Ã cette demande . Le . . . avril 1978, le procureur dÃ©posa une nouvelle demande de prolongation de la mise en observation, jusqu'au jugement . A l'appui de cette demande, il faisait valoir que l'expertise n'avait pas encore Ã©tÃ© effectuÃ©e et qu'une libÃ©ration de l'adolescent rendrait plus difficile l'exÃ©cution de la mesure (placement dans une maison d'Ã©ducation) qu'il envisageait de requÃ©rir aprÃ©s de l'autoritÃ© de jugement .
Le dÃ©fenseur d'office du requÃ©rant, Mâ¢ K ., s'opposa Ã cette demande, Ã laquelle le PrÃ©sident du Tribunal de la Jeunesse fit nÃ©anmoins droit le . . . avril 1978 avant mÃªme d'avoir pu prendre connaissance des objections du dÃ©fenseur . ' Le requArant avant AtÃ© gribvement accidentA le 1978 et encore dans la l'inlroduction de la requÃ©te, son pAre se orÃ©sante Agalement comme second .
coma lors de
Le requÃ©rant recourut immÃ©diatement contre cette dÃ©cision et demanda sa libÃ©ration immÃ©diate . Cerecours fut rejetÃ© le . . . mai 1978 par la cour d'appel lobergerichtl du canton Observant que le principe de la mise en dÃ©tention est rÃ©gi par le droit fÃ©dÃ©ral (article 90 du Code pÃ©nal suisse), et que sa durÃ©e relÃ©ve du droit cantonal, la cour constatait que la longueur de la mise en observation ne heurtait pas en I'espÃ©ce le principe de proportionnalitÃ© La cour rejetait Ã©galement l'argument du requÃ©rant selon lequel la prolongation de la mesure Ã©tait irrÃ©guliÃ©re puisque ni lui ni son conseil n'avaient Ã©tÃ© entendus . Le principe du procÃ©s Ã©quitable serait, en effet, inapplicable Ã de telles procÃ©dures . Se fondant notamment sur l'article 4 de la Constitution et sur la Convention (articles 4 et 5), le requÃ©rant forma un recours de droit public devant le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral suisse . Ce recours fut rejetÃ© le . . . juillet 1978 . Entre-temps, le . . juin 1978, le rapport mÃ©dico-psycho-social avait Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli . Le Procureur avait ordonnÃ© le . . juin 1978 le maintien de l'adolescent dans le Centre d'observation jusqu'au . . . juin, date Ã laquelle celui-ci devai t Ã¨tre placÃ© chez M . Minelli . Dans son arrÃ©t du . . . juillet 1978 le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral suisse releva qu'il n'y avait ni arbitraire ni atteinte Ã la libertÃ©, la durÃ©e de la mesure n'ayant pas violÃ© le principe de proportionnalitÃ© . Il ajouta qu'aucune des normes de la Convention invoquÃ©es par le requÃ©rant n'avait Ã©tÃ© mÃ©connue . Le . . . septembre 1978, le Tribunal de la jeunesse dÃ©clara le requÃ©rant coupable de divers dÃ©lits et ordonna son placement familial conformÃ©ment Ã© l'article 91 du Code pÃ©nal suisse . GRIEFS 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint d'avoir Ã©tÃ© contraint de travailler comme Ã©bÃ©niste dans le centre d'observation pour un salaire dÃ©risoire (environ 25 centimes l'heure), alors mÃªme qu'il n'avait pas encore seize ans . Il invoque, Ã cet Ã©gard, la violation de l'article 4 de la Convention . 2 . Le requÃ©rant soutient que sa dÃ©tention durant huit mois, dÃ©pourvue de motifs valables en droit interne, ne rentre dans aucune des catÃ©gories d'exception au principe du droit Ã la libertÃ© posÃ© par l'article 5, paragraphe 1 . Cette dÃ©tention n'aurait eu d'autre but que d'Ã©loigner le requÃ©rant de ses parents et fournir au centre d'observation une force de travail Ã bon marchÃ© . 3 . Le requÃ©rant invoque encore la mÃ©connaissance du droit au respect de la vie privÃ©e et familiale posÃ© par l'article 8 qui postule que les enfants vivent en rÃ©gle gÃ©nÃ©rale auprÃ©s de leurs parents . 4 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint enfin d'une discrimination opÃ©rÃ©e entre les adolescents et les adultes, ces derniers n'Ã©tant pas soumis Ã un travail obligatoire en cas de dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive (articles 14 et 4 combinÃ©s) ._240
EN DROI T 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint d'avoir Ã©tÃ© retenu 8 mois dans un centre d'observation . II soutient avoir Ã©tÃ© ainsi privÃ© de sa libertÃ© en violation de l'article 5, paragraphe 1 de la Convention . II conteste en particulier que la privation de libertÃ© subie soit couverte par l'article 5, paragraphe 1 Idl . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ il joue un rÃ´le en l'espÃ©ce, l'anicle 5, paragraphe 1 de la Convention est ainsi libellÃ© : Â« Toute personne a droit Ã la libertÃ© et Ã la sÃ»retÃ© . Nul ne peut Ãªtre privÃ© de sa libertÃ©, sauf dans les cas suivants et selon les voies lÃ©gales : 1... d) s'il s'agit de la dÃ©tention rÃ©guliÃ©re d'un mineur, dÃ©cidÃ©e pour son Ã©ducation surveillÃ©e ou de sa dÃ©tention rÃ©guliÃ©re, afin de le traduire devant l'autoritÃ© compÃ©tente ; I . . .) Le requÃ©rant semble effectivement avoir Ã©tÃ© privÃ© de libertÃ© en ce sens qu'il Ã©tait retenu dans un Ã©tablissement avec interdiction d'en sortir . Il n'est pas douteux qu'2gÃ© de 16 ans lors des faits, il doive Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme un mineur au sens, autonome, de cette disposition . Il suffira de relever Ã cet Ã©gard que, dans aucun Etat partie Ã le Convention, l'Ã¢ge de la majoritÃ© lÃ©gale n'est infÃ©rieur Ã 18 ans . Par ailleurs, le requÃ©rant faisait l'objet d'une instruction pour faits constitutifs de vols et infractions au code de la route . Son placement dans un centre d'observation trouve sa base dans des textes lÃ©gaux (articles 380 du code cantonal de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale, article 90 du code pÃ©nal suissel qui stipulent les diverses mesures d'instruction pouvant Ã¨tre prises en vue d'Ã©clairer la dÃ©cision que devra prendre l'autoritÃ© de jugement si elle constate les faits . Prise en elle-mÃ©me, la mise en observation du requÃ©rant rentre ainsi dans le cadre de la disposition prÃ©citÃ©e, comme Ã©tant la dÃ©tention d'un mineur afin de le traduire devant l'autoritÃ© compÃ©tente . Encore faut-il vÃ©rifier si cette dÃ©tention Ã©tait Â« rÃ©guliÃ©re Â» et conforme aux voies lÃ©gales . Pour qu'une dÃ©tention soit conforme aux voies lÃ©gales, il faut que la procÃ©dure fixÃ©e par la lÃ©gislation nationale ait Ã©tÃ© suivie et que cette procÃ©dure soit elle-mÃ¨me Â« Ã©quitable et adÃ©quate Â», assurant notamment que la privation de libertÃ© Ã©mane d'une autoritÃ© qualifiÃ©e, qu'elle soit exÃ©cutÃ©e par une telle autoritÃ© et ne revÃªte pas un caractÃ¨re arbitraire (cf . Cour eur . D .H . Affaire Winterwerp, ArrÃªt du 24 octobre 1979, paragraphe 45) . La rÃ©gularitÃ© de la dÃ©tention suppose la conformitÃ© au droit interne ainsi qu'au but des restrictions autorisÃ©es par l'article 5, paragraphe 1 Idl (ibid . paragraphe 39) . II suffit de constater en l'espÃ¨ce que la mesure, prise par les autoritÃ©s compÃ©-
tentes (procureur de la jeunesse, PrÃ©sident du Tribunal de la Jeunesse) en application de l'article 380 du code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale du canton de ZÃ¼rich, Ã©tait motivÃ©e par l'inopÃ©rance de mesures d'assistance Ã©ducative prises antÃ©rieurement et la nÃ©cessitÃ© correspondante de mieux connaitre la personnalitÃ© de l'adolescent . Sans doute la mise en observation s'est-elle prolongÃ©e relativement longtemps puisqu'il a fallu prÃ©s de 8 mois pour que soit Ã©tabli le rapport psycho-mÃ©dical requis . Cette seule circonstance n'est toutefois pas, en elle-mÃªme, de nature Ã jeter un doute sur le but de la dÃ©tention et la conformitÃ© de celle-ci Ã l'article 5, paragraphe 1(d ) . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant se plaint de dÃ©tention irrÃ©guliÃ©re ou arbitraire, sa requÃªte est ainsi manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'anicle 27, paragraphe 2 de la Convention . 2 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint par ailleurs de ce que sa mise en observation durant 8 mois, en le sÃ©parant de sa famille, constitue une violation de son droit au respect Ã la vie privÃ©e et familiale garanti par l'article 8 de la Convention . Cette disposition garantit en effet le droit au respect de la vie familiale, assurant ainsi une protection contre toute ingÃ©rence injustifiÃ©e de l'autoritÃ© publique dans la vie familiale des parents avec leurs enfants IReq . NÂ° 5416/72 c/Autriche - Rec . 46, p . 88 ; NÂ° 6577/74 c/RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne, D .R 1 p . 911 . En l'espÃ©ce toutefois, la mise en observation du requÃ©rant dans le cadre d'une instruction judiciaire ouverte contre lui et conformÃ©ment au droit en vigueur, constituait une mesure nÃ©cessaire, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, Ã la dÃ©fense de l'ordre et Ã la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales au sens du paragraphe 2 de cette disposition, qui autorise certaines ingÃ©rences dans l'exercice de ce droit . Il s'ensuit que le grief est manifestement mal fondÃ© au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 de la Convention . 3 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint encore d'avoir Ã©tÃ© contraint de travailler pour un salaire dÃ©risoire . Il allÃ©gue Ã cet Ã©gard la violation de l'article 4, paragraphe 2 de la Convention qui dispose que Â« nul ne peut Ãªtre astreint Ã accomplir un travail forcÃ© ou obligatoire . Â» Cette disposition doit cependant Ãªtre rapprochÃ©e de l'article 4, paragraphe 3 a) qui se lit comme sui t Â« N'est pas considÃ©rÃ© comme Â« travail forcÃ© ou obligatoire Â» au sens du prÃ©sent articl e a) tout travail requis normalement d'une personne soumise Ã la dÃ©tention dans les conditions prÃ©vues par l'article 5 de la prÃ©sente Convention, ou durant sa mise en libertÃ© conditionnelle ; I . . .I n
Il convient de relever Ã cet Ã©gard que, contrairement Ã d'autres dispositlons de droit international conventionnel, la Convention n'exclut pas de la notion de Â« travail forcÃ© ou obligatoire Â» celui-lÃ seul qui est requis d'un condamnÃ© (cf . Convention NÂ° 29 de l'OIT du 10 juin 1930 relative au Travail forcÃ© ou obligatoire, article 2, paragraphe 2 Icll, ou d'une personne dÃ©tenue en vertu d'une dÃ©cision de justice rÃ©guliÃ©re IPacte International relatif aux droits civils et politiques Article 8, paragraphe 3, c lil 1 . En l'espÃ©ce, ainsi que la Commission l'a dÃ©jÃ relevÃ©, le requÃ©rant Ã©tait dÃ©tenu conformÃ©ment Ã© l'article 5, paragraphe 1 Idl de la Convention . Le travail qu'il a Ã©tÃ© amenÃ© 9 effectuer contre son grÃ© ne sera donc pas considÃ©rÃ© comme Â« travail forcÃ© ou obligatoire Â» dÃ¨s lors qu'il pourra Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ© comme Â« requis normalement Â» ("required to be done in the ordinary course of detention"1 dans cette hypothÃ©se de dÃ©tention . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© contraint d'effectuer des travaux de menuiserie dans un atelier spÃ©cialement Ã©quipÃ© Ã cet effet . II ne ressort pas du dossier que ce travail aurait Ã©tÃ© requis illÃ©galement, ce griet ayant Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ© par le Tribunal FÃ©dÃ©ral Suisse, ni qu'il aurait Ã©tÃ© anormalement long ou pÃ©nible eu Ã©gard Ã l'Ã¢ge du requÃ©rant, ou dÃ©pourvu de valeur formative . Dans ces conditions, l'obligation de travailler imposÃ©e au requÃ©rant n'a pas excÃ©dÃ©e les limites de la Â« normale Â» au sens de l'article 4, paragraphe 3 lal de la Convention Icf . Cour eur . D .H . Affaires De Wilde, Ooms et Versyp ArrÃªt du 18 juin 1971, paragraphe 901 . Il s'ensuit que cet aspect de la requÃªte doit Ã©galement 8tre rejetÃ© pour dÃ©faul manifeste de fondement au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 de la Convention . 4 Le requÃ©rant se plaint enfin d'une discrimination opÃ©rÃ©e entre les adolescents et les adultes, ces derniers n'Ã©tant pas soumis 9 un travail obligatoire, en cas de dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive . Il allÃ¨gue Ã© cet effet la violation de l'article 14 de la Convention, pris conjointement avec l'article 4 . L'article 14 stipule que la jouissance des droits et libertÃ©s reconnus dans la Convention doit Ãªtre assurÃ©e sans distinction aucune, fondÃ©e notamment sur le sexe, la race, la couleur, la langue, la religion, les opinions politiques ou toutes autres opinions, l'origine nationale ou sociale, l'appartenance Ã une minoritÃ© nalionale, la fortune, la naissance ou toute autre situation . La Commission estime cependant que l'ordre juridique suisse n'Ã©tablit pas de diffÃ©rence entre des groupes de personnes comparables les unes aux autres (cf . mut . mut . Req . NÂ° 7427/76 c/Autriche, D .R . 7, p . 148) . II ne distingue pas en effet diffÃ©rentes catÃ©gories de personnes placÃ©es en dÃ©tention provisoire, en fonction de l'Ã¢ge . La situation du mineur face Ã la justice
est fondamentalement diffÃ©rente tant avant l'Ã©tablissement d'un fait constitutif d'infraction qu'aprÃ©s celui-ci ou mÃªme en dehors de toute instruction . En Suisse comme dans un grand nombre d'Etats membres du Conseil de l'Europe, elle est caractÃ©risÃ©e par une plus grande souplesse dans le choix des mesures qui peuvent Ãªtre prises, une insistance plus marquÃ©e sur les besoins de connaissance de la personnalitÃ©, d'Ã©ducation et de formation . Cette diffÃ©rence fondamentale se reflÃ¨te au reste dans l'article 5, paragraphe 1(d ) de la Convention . Il suffit de constater ici qu'aucune diffÃ©rence de traitement entre diverses catÃ©gories de mineurs n'a Ã©tÃ© allÃ©guÃ©e . ' Cette partie de la requÃªte est dÃ¨s lors, elle aussi, manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commission DECLARE LA REOUETE IRRECEVABLE .
1 TRANSLATIONI
THE FACTS The facts of the case may be summarised as follow s The applicant, a Swiss national, was born on . . . 1962 . He is represented by his father', who has instructed Mr Minelli to bring this application before the Commission . In October 1977 the applicant, who was then 15 years old, underwent judicial investigation ("Strafuntersuchung") for a variety of offences (theft and traffic offences) . The previous year the Juvenile Court ("Jugendgericht") of the M . district (ZÃ¼rich) had found him responsible for various acts amounting to theft and other offences and had ordered educative measures . During the investigation the public prosecutor's office for juvenile cases ("Jugendanwaltschaft") judged it necessary to send the applicant for observation in a specialist centre at B . so that his behaviour could be studied , ' As the aopllcant was seriously injured in an accident on . . 1978 and was stdl in a coma when the apolication was made . his lather Is also appearinf3 as second apolican t
particularly as the educative measures taken previously had proved ineffective . The prosecutor took a decision to this effect on . . . October 1977 under Article 380 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Canton of ZÃ¼rich . As he thought it likely that this period of observation would last longer than a month, the prosecutor applied to the President of the Juvenile Court on . . . November 1977 for an extension of 5 months, i .e . up to . . . April 1978 . The President granted this application on the same day . On . . . April 1978 the prosecutor made a further application for the period of observation to be extended up to the trial . In support of this application he pointed out that the medical report had not yet been made and that release of the applicant would make it more difficult to carry out the measure he intended to request at the trial (sending him to an educational centrel . The counsel assigned to the applicant by the Court, Mr K ., opposed the application, but the President of the Juvenile Court nonetheless granted it on . . . April 1978 before he could even have heard defence counsel's objections . The applicant immediately appealed against this decision and applie d for immediate release . This appeal was dismissed on . . . May 1978 by the cantonal court of appeal I"ObergÃªricht"I . Noting that the principle of detention was governed by federal law (Article 90 of the Swiss Criminal Code) but its duration by cantonal law, the court found that the length of the observation period was not in this case unreasonable in view of its purpose . The court likewise rejected the applicant's argument that the observation period had been improperly extended in that neither he nor his counsel had been given a hearing, and held that the principle of a fair trial did not apply to such proceedings . Relying inreralia on Article 4 of the Constitution and on the Convention (Articles 4 and 51, the applicant lodged a public-law appeal with the Swiss Federal Court . This appeal was dismissed on . . . July 1978 . Meanwhile, on . . . June 1978, the medical and psychiatric report had been proceded . On . . . June 1978 the public prosecutor had ordered the applicant to be kept under observation at the centre until . . . June, when he was to be placed in the care of Mr Minelli . In its judgment of . . . July 1978 the Swiss Federal Court found that the action taken had been in no way arbitrary or in breach of freedom, since the duration of the measure had not been unreasÃ´nable in view of its purpose . It added that none of the provisions of the Convention that were invoked by the applicant had beÃ©n disregarded . - 245 -
On . . . September 1978 the Juvenile Court found the applicant guilty of various offences and made a care order under Article 91 of the Swiss Criminal Code S.COMPLAINT 1 . The applicant complains that he was compelled to work as a cabinetmaker in the observation centre for a deriso ry wage ( about 25 centimes an hour) when he was not even 16 years old . He alleges a breach of Article 4 of the Convention . 2 . The applicant maintains that his detention for 8 months, on no grounds valid in domestic law, does not come within any of the categories of exceptions to the principle of the right to liberty laid down in Article 5(1 ) . It is alleged that detention served no other purpose than that of taking him away from his parents and providing the observalion centre with cheap labour . 3 . The applicant also alleges disregard of the right to respect for private and family life laid down in Article 8, which implies that children should generally live with their parents . 4 . Finally, the applicant complains of discrimination between young people and adults in that the latter are not required to do work in the event of being detained pending trial (Articles 14 and 4 taken together) . THE LA W 1 . The applicant complains of . having been detained in an observation centre for 8 months . He alleges that he was thus deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 (1) of the Convention . In particular, he disputes that this deprivation of liberty is covered by Article 5(1 ) Idl . The relevant part of Article 5 (1) of the Convention reads as follows "Eve ryone has the right to liberty and security of pe rs on . No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by la w 1 . .] d. the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of education or supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authorit y 1 . . .1" The applicant indeed seems to have been deprived of his liberty in that he was detained in an institution and forbidden to leave it . Nor is there any doubt that, as he was 16 years old at the time, he must be considered as a
minor within the meaning of the above provision, which is self-sufficient in this respect : it is enough to note that in no State which is a party to the Convention is the age of majority less than 18 . The applicant underwent judicial investigation in connection with thefts and traffic offences . He was detained in an observation centre under statutory provisions IArticle 380 of the cantonal Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 90 of the Swiss Criminal Code) which specify the various investigatory measures that may be taken in order to provide the judicial authority with information on which to base the decision it must take if it finds the facts to be proved . Taken by itself, the fact of sending the applicant for observation falls within the aforementioned provision, being detention of a minor for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority . It nonetheless needs to be checked whether such detention was "lawful" and in accordance wilh a procedure prescribed by law . In order for detention to be in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, the procedure laid down in national legislation must have been followed and must itself be a "fair and proper" one ; in particular it must ensure that any measure depriving a person of his liberty is taken by, and enforced by, an appropriate authority and is not arbitrary (cf . Eur Court H .R ., Winierwerp case, judgment of 24 October 1979, para . 45) . Lawful detention presupposes conformity with domestic law and with the purpose of the restrictions permitted by Article 5(1 ) Idl (ibid, para . 39) . In the present case it is sufficient to note that the measure was taken by the competent legal authorities (the public prosecutor for juvenile cases and the President of the Juvenile Court) in pursuance of Article 380 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Canton of Zurich and was prompted by the ineffectiveness of earlier educative measures and the consequent need for a better understanding of the applicant's personality . No doubt the observation period did last for a fairly long time, since it took nearly 8 months for the required medical and psychiatric report to be made . This fact alone is however not of itself such as to cast doubt on the purpose of detention or its conformity with Article 5 (1) Idl . In so far as the applicant complains of unlawful or arbitrary detention, his application is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention .
2 . The applicant also complains that, by separating him from his family, the 8-month period of observation was a violation of his right to respect for private and family life secured by Article 8 of the Convention . This provision does indeed safeguard the right to respect for family life, thus ensuring protection from any unjustified interference by a public auth-
ority in the family life of parents and their children IApplications Nos 5416/72 v . Austria - Coll . 46, p 88, and 6577/74 v . Federal Republic of Germany, DR 1, p . 91) . In the present case, however, placing the applicant under observation, as part of a judicial investigation concerning him and in accordance with the law in force, was a measure necessa ry in a democratic society for the prevention of disorder or crime within the meaning of Anicle 8 121, which authorises certain interferences with the exercise of the right in question . It follows that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 121 of the Convention . 3 . The applicant further complains that he was compelled to work for a deriso ry wage . Here he allÃ©ges a breach of Article 4 121 of the Convention, which provided that "no one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour . " This provision, however, must be taken in conjunction with Article 4 (3) (a), which reads as follows : "For the purpose of this Article, the term 'forced or compulso ry labour' shall not include : a . any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release trom such detentio n 1 . . .1" Here it should be noted that, unlike other provisions of international treaty law, the Convention does not merely exclude from the notion of "forced or compulsory labour" work which is required of a convicted person Icf . ILO Convention No . 29 of 10 June 1930 on forced or compulso ry labour, A rt icle 2, para . 2 (c)) or of a person in detention in consequence of a lawful court order (International Covenant on civil and political rights, Article 8, para . 3 (c) fi) I . In this case, as the Commission has already noted, the applicant was detained in accordance with Article 5 I11 (d) of the Convention . The work he had to do against his will cannot be considered as "forced or compulso ry labour" once it can be regarded as "required to be done in the ordina ry course of detention . " The applicant was compelled to do carpentry in a specially equipped workshop . It is not apparent from the case record that this work was required unlawfully-a complaint which was dismissed by the Swiss Federal Court-, was abnormally long or ardues in view of the applicant's age or was of no educational value . This being so, the applicant's being made to work did not go beyond "ordinary" limits within the meaning of Article 4(3 ) fal of the Conventio n
(see Eur . Court H .R ., De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp cases-judgment of 18 June 1971, para . 901 . It follows that this part of the application must likewise be dismissed as being manifestly without foundation within the meaning of Article 27121 of the Convention . 4 . Lastly, the applicant complains of discrimination belween juveniles and adults in that the latter are not required to do work in the event of being detained pending trial . He alleges a breach of Article 14 of the Convention, taken together with Arlicle 4 . Article 14 stipulates that enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention is to be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, properly, birth or other status . The Commission considers, however, that the Swiss legal system does not differentiate between groups of people which may be considered comparable (cf . murau's mutandls Application No . 7427/76 v . Austria, Coll . 7, p . 1481 . It does not make any distinction on grounds of age between different categories of persons detained pending trial . A minor's position in law is fundamentally different both before an offence has been proved and afterwards and even in the absence of any judicial investigation . In respect of minors there is in Switzerland . as in a large number of Council of Europe member States, a much wider choice of measures which may be taken and more emphasis is placed on the need for an understanding of the personality and for education and training . Article 5 (1) Idl of the Convention moreover reflects this fundamental difference . It is sufficient to note here that no difference of treatment between various categories of minors has been alleged . This part of the application, therefore, is likewise manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
- 249 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 14/12/1979Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 4
 l'article 380
 l'article 4
 l'article 91
 l'article 4
 l'article 5
 l'article 8
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 380
 l'article 5
 l'article 8
 l'article 27
 l'article 4
 l'article 4
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 4
 l'article 27
 l'article 14
 l'article 4
 L'article 14
 l'article 5
 l'article 27