Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19780506-781977-787877
Timestamp: 2017-07-22 04:45:51+00:00

Document:
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 7819/77;7878/77Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1978-05-06;7819.77 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 3) PEINE DEGRADANTE, (Art. 3) PEINE INHUMAINEParties : Demandeurs : CAMPBELLDéfendeurs : ROYAUME-UNITexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 7819/7 7 J .J . CAMPBELL v/the UNITED KINGDOM â¢ J .J . CAMPBELL c/ROYAUME-UNI â¢
DECISION of 6 May 1978 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 6 mai 1978 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la reqÃ»Ã©t e
Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Conventio nlaCrimchge . Does this provision apply to disciplinary punishment o f a convicted prisone r, consisting of 605 days' loss of rethission and ~ 917 days' cellular confinement ? Examination according to criteria established by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Engel and others . . . , (b)
Access to a cburt. Prisoner not allowed to consu/t an independan injured or to consu/t a solicitor in order toetdocrafhvingb institute civil proceedings before an adminlstrative investigation wa s
(Complaints admissible) .
Article 26 of the Convention : Exhaustion of domestic remediÃ©s. Ineffective remedy . The refusal of a petitionof another person who was in an identical situation disclosed a practice of rejection of such petitions .
Article 6, paragraphe 1 de la Convention : (a) Accusation en matiÃ©re pÃ©nale . Cette disposition est-elle applicable Ã la punition disciplinaire d'un dÃ©tenu condamnÃ© consistant Ã© retrancher 605 jours de ses perspectivÃ©s .de remtse de peine (loss of remission) e t ' The auolicant is represented before the Comminion by Mr C . Thornberry, berriater-et-lew in London, who is essisted by MÃ´e K . LendOren. â¢ Le reou6rent eet reor6sent6 deyant la Comm6eion par Mâ¢ C . Thomberry, barrroter A Londrm, a ssrstÃ© de Mile K . Landaren .
Ã lui infliger 90 jours de dÃ©tention cellulaire? Examen selon les critÃ¨res Ã©noncÃ©s par la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme dans l'affaire Engel et autres . Ibl AccÃ©s aux tribunaux . DÃ©tenu non autorisÃ© Ã consulter un mÃ©decin indÃ©pendant aprÃ¨s avoir Ã©tÃ© blessÃ© et non autorisÃ© Ã consulter un homme de loi en vue d'intenter une action civile, avant la fin d'une enquÃªte administrative.
(Griefs dÃ©clarÃ©s recevables) . Article 26 de /a Convention : Epuisement des voies de recours internes . Recours inefficace. Echec d'un recours formÃ© par une autre personne se trouvant dans une situation identique rÃ©vÃ©lant l'existence d'une pratique de rejer.
I franCats : voir p . 192)
The applicant is serving a ten year prison sentence for conspiracy to rob, illega/ possession of a firearm and other lesser offences . On 16 september 1976 an incident took place in Albany prison, where the applicant was detained at the time. As a means of making a pmtesr, six prisoners - including the applicant - had garhered in a corridor which they refused to leave. Upon the orders of the Deputy Governor, a group of prison officers staried to remove them . A brawl ensued during which the officers made use of staves. The applicant was injured and needed medical treatment . The applicant was summonded to appear before the Board of Visitors charged with disciplinary offences. He refused to appear on the grounds that he wanted legal representation and enough time to prepare hls defence . The Board of Visirors proceeded in his absence and awarded the applicant punishment of 90 days' cellular confinement and biK days' loss of remission for mutiny or incitement to mutiny and gross personal violence to an officer . Moreover, the applicant, soon after the incident, asked to be examined by an independant doctor and this was refused him . He also asked to be able to consu/t his solicitors with a view to bringing an action for damages for personal injury . He was told that he first had to submit his complaints in sufficient detail to allow an internal administrative investigation to take place . At the end of his enquiry, that is to say in November 1977, the applicant was allowed to consult his solicitors.
THE LAW (Extract ) Disciplinary proceedings - Article 6 15 . The applicant complains that he was sentenced by a Board of Visitors to a period of "solitary confinement" and to some 605 days' loss of remission on disciplinary charges arising out of the incident on 16 September 1976 . He maintains that the allegations against him were "criminal" charges within the meaning of Article 6 but submits that in variousrespects the proceedings before the Board of Visitors did not comply with the requirements of Article 6 . .The respondent- Government maintain that the proceedings were disciplinary in character and that Article 6 was not applicable . In the alternative they submit that the requirements of Article 6 were sufficiently complied with . They submit that this- part of the application is therefore manifestly ill-founded or incompatible with the Convention . 16 . The Commission has first considered whether Article 6 was applicable to the proceedings in question . It recalls that in the case of Engel and others the European Court of Human Rights held that States were permitted under the Convention to establish a distinction between criminal and disciplinary law, but that the Court had jurisdiction under Article 6 to satisfy itself that the disciplinary did not improperly encroach upon the Ã§riminal . (Judgment of 8 June 1976, paragraph 81) The Court enumerated criteria applicable, in the sphere of military service, for the purpose of determining whether a given charge vested by the State with a disciplinary character, nevertheless, counted as "criminal" within the meaning of Article 6 (ibid paragraph 82) . The factors which the Court took into account were : . "whether the provisions defining the . offence charged belong , .1 according to the legal system of the respondent State, to criminal law, disciplinary'law or both currently" ; . "the very nature of the offence
3 . "the degree of severity of the penalty which the person concerned risks incurring" . . The Commission further recalls that it has since held in the case of Kis s -17 v . the United Kingdom' that these criteria are also applicable for the purpose of determining whether a prison disciplinary charge falls within the "criminal" sphere . It held that Article 6 was not applicable to the proceedingsin question in that case, which involved a charge of making a false and malicious allegation against an officer, an offence punishable with one or more of variousdifferent penalties connected with prison privileges, including cellular confinement not exceeding 56 days and loss of remission not exceedin g Application No . 6224/73, Decisions and Repons 7, p . 55 .
180 days . The actual punishment included inrer alia 80 days' loss of remission . The Commission found that the authorities were enlitled to take disciplinary proceedings and so far as concerned the question of severity of penalty, made the following observations : . . . the Commission finds that loss of remission does not constitute deprivation of liberty . A prisoner, unlike a person doing military service, is deprived of his liberty for the whole of his sentence . Any remission of that sentence for good behaviour is mere privilege and loss of that privilege does not alter the original basis for detention" . The Commission further observed that the severity of the penalty could not be said to be wholly unrelaled to the offence and moreover that "the severity of the punishment alone does not bring the offence charged within the criminal sphere" . 18 . In the present case the applicant was charged firstly with "mutiny or incitement to mutiny" and secondly with "gross personal violence to an officer" . Both the offences rame within provisions of disciplinary law, namely paragraphs 1 and 2 of Rule 47 of the Prison Rules 1961 . The second offence at least was governed concurrently by criminal law since it constituted the offence of assaull . 19 . As regards the "very nature" of the offences, which the Court described as "a factor of greater import", the Commission observes that both offences were disciplinary in character in so far as they involved the violation of legal rules governing the operation of the prison (cf . Engel judgment, para . 82) . However the second offence at least also involved an evidently serious violation of the general criminal law, a factor which the Commission considers relevant in determining whether the "disciplinary" improperly encroached on the "criminal" . 20 . As to the severity of the penalty at risk, the Commission observes that the penalty at risk in the present case was more severe than those at stake in the Kiss case and other cases raising similar issues which it has considered subsequently' . Both the offences in question were classified as "especially grave offences" in the Prison Rules and by vinue of Rule 52 (as amended) the Board of Visitors could impose a penalty of loss of remission exceeding the limit of 180 days applicable in the case of other offences . The maximum remission which any prisoner might be granted was one-third of his sentence, which was 3 years and 4 months in the present case, and thus within that limit (at least provided no remission had already been lostl, any period of loss of remission might be awarded . The actual penalty in this case was about 605 days' loss of remission according to the applicant, together with a period of some 90 days cellular confinement . E .g . Applicetion No. 7181/76, X. Y. the United Kingdom, Decision of 3 March 1978 lUnpublbhedl .
21 The facts of the present case are thus different from those of the Kiss case both as regards the nature of the offences charges and as regards the severity of the penalties at stake, albeit that they did not, in accordancÃ© with the Commission's jurisprudence in the Kiss case, involve a deprivation of libe rt y . Taking into account the serious nature of both the offences charged and the pÃ©nalties at stake, the Commission considers that the question whether the proceedings properly fell within the "disciplina ry " or "criminal" sphere raises important questions concerning the interpretation and application of the Convention which can be determined only in an examination on merits of this pa rt of the application . 22 . 'The Commission has next considered the respondent Government's submission that this part of the application is in any event manifestly illfounded on the ground that the requirements of Article 6 were sufficiently complied with . However, having considered the parties' submissions it finds that important issues of fact and law, which require to be determined on the merits, arise in connection with this question also . -, . It follows that this part of the applicÃ©tion cannot be described a s ,23 incompatible with the Convention or as manifestly ill-founded . No other ground of inadmissibility appears and it must therefore bÃ© declared admissible . Contact with solicitors in connection with injuries and access to independent medical adivce - A rt icles 6 and 8 24 . The applicant next complains that he was not allowed an independen t medical examination or contact with his solicitors after he -received his injuries on 16 September 1976 . He alleges the violation of Article 6of the Convention, in so far as it guarantees a right of access to court, and of Article 8 in so far as it guarantees the right to respect for correspondence . The respondent Government first submit that the complaint that th e .25 applicant was refused . facilities for an independent medical examination is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies on the ground that the applicant failed to pÃ©tition the Home Secretary . Howeverthe Commission notes that a similar request to the Home Office made on behalf of one of the other prisoners involved in the incident on 16 September 1976 was refused on the ground that it was "not the practice of the Department to allow prisoners to be examined by outside doctors except . . . wherÃ© these were called in for consultation by the prison medical sÃ©rvicÃ©" . In viewof this practice the Commission concludes that a petition to the HomeSecrÃ©tary by the applicant requesting independent medical examination would not have had any reasonable prospect of success, and that he was therefore absolved from making use of this remedy . 26 The respondent Government further submit that Article 6 does no t
guarantee a right of access to an independent doctor . It is true that no suc h _190_
right is, as such, guaranteed by Article 6~ Nevertheless it appears that the applicant wished to obtain an independent medical examination with a view to bringing a claim in respect of his injuries before a court . A question therefore arises as to whether Article 6 implies that facilities should be made available to a prisoner for the preparation of a civil claim, including in a personal injury case facilities for medical examination . In the context of the present case the Commission considers that this complaint must be seen as an integral part of the applicant's complaint that the effective exercise of his right of access lo court, as guaranleed by Article 6(1) of the Convention has been interfered with . 27 . The Commission notes that the applicant was not allowed to contact his solicitors with a view to instituting civil proceedings in respect of his injuries until about November 1977, some fourteen months after the incident in September 1976 . However, as it has already observed, it is reasonable to suppose that had he cooperated with the internal investigation procedure he would have obtained access to his solicitors some four to five months after the events in question . The Commission further notes that once he became a party to civil proceedings he would have apparently been able to obtain an independent medical examination under Rule 37 A 131 of the Prison Rules . 28 . The Commission recalls that in its Judgment in the Golder case (European Court of Human Rights, Series A No . 18), the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 6(1) of the Convention secures "the right to have any claim relating to . . . civil rights and . obligations brought before a court or tribunal (para . 36) . It also held that "hindÃ©ring the effective exercise of a right may amount to a breach of that right, even if the hindrance is of a temporary character" (para . 26) . It further held that the right of access to the courts "is not absolutÃ©" but that there was room for limitations permitted by implication (para . 38) . It further indicated, with reference to its previous case-law in the Belgian Linguistic case, that such limitations must not injure the substance of the right . 29 . Having examined the submissions of the parties in the light of the above-mentioned jurisprudence, the Commission considers that this part of the application raises substantial issues of fact and law which can only be determined in an examination on the merits . In particular the question arises as to whether a delay of even four to five months in allowing the facilities necessary for him to bring his claim before the courts was compatible with Article 6(1) . In so far as the applicant was not allowed to correspond with his solicitors, questions also arise under Article 8 of the Convention, which guarantees inter alia the right to respect for correspondence . The Commission finds that this part of the application therefore be described as incompatible with the Convention or manifestly ill-founded . No other ground of inadmissibility appears and it must therefore be declare admissible .
RÃ©sumÃ© des faits pertinents Le requÃ©rant purge une peine de dix ans de .prison pour tentative de brigandage, possession illicite d'arme 9 feu et autres infractions . Le 16 septembre 1976 un incident eut lieu Ã la prison d'Afbany, oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant se trouvait dÃ©tenu : A titre de manifestation de protestation, six dÃ©tenus - dont le requÃ©rant - se rassemblÃ¨rent dans un couloir, qu'ils refusÃ©rent de quitter. Aux ordres du sous-directeur une escouade de gardiens entreprit de les dÃ©loger. Une rixe s'ensuivit, au cours de laquelle les gardiens firent usage de bÃ¢tons . Le requÃ©rant fut blessÃ© etdur recevoir des soins . Le requÃ©rant fut traduit devant la Commission des visiteurs de prisons (Board of visitorsl, en vue d'une sanction disciplinaire . Il refusa de comparaitre au motif qu'il dÃ©sirait Ãªtre assistÃ© d'un dÃ©fenseur . et disposer du temps nÃ©cessaire Ã la prÃ©paration de sa dÃ©fense . La Commission des visiteurs procÃ©da en son absence et le punit de 90 jours de dÃ©tention cellulaire et de 605 jours de perte de remise de peine (loss of remission) pour mutinerie et tentative de mutinerie, ainsi que brutalitÃ©s commises sur la personne d'un gardien . ,D'autrepart,lerequÃ©rant,peuaprÃ©sl'incident,demandaÃ©@tre xamin Ã© par un mÃ©decin indÃ©pendant, ce qui lui fut refusÃ© . Il demanda Ã©galement Ã pouvoir consulter ses solicitors en vue d'intenter action en rÃ©pa2tiÃ´n du dommage subi (ses blessures) . ll lui fut rÃ©pondu qu'il devait auparavant exposer ses griefs en dÃ©taif afin de permettre une enquÃªte administrative interne . A la fin de cette enquÃ©te, soit en novembre 1977, le requÃ©2nt fut autorisÃ© Ã consulter ses solicitors
EN DROIT (Extrait ) ... ... .. .. .. .. ProcÃ©dure disciplinaire - Article 6 15 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint d'avoir Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© par une Commission des visiteurs des prisons Ã une pÃ©riode de Â« dÃ©tention cellulaire Â» et d'avoir perdu 605 jours de remise de peine (loss of remission) pour les infractions disciplinaires dont il a Ã©tÃ© accusÃ© aprÃ¨s l'incident du 16 septembre 1976 . Ilsoutient que les accusations le concernant Ã©taient des accÃ»sations Â« pÃ©nales Â» ausens de l'article 6, mais prÃ©tend qu'A plusieurs Ã©gards, la procÃ©dure devant la Commission des visiteurs n'Ã©tait pas conforme auxexigences de l'Ã¢rticle 6 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur soutient que, la procÃ©dure ayant un caractÃ¨re disciplinaire, l'article 6 ne lui Ã©tait pas applicable . En ordre subsidiaire, il soutient que les conditions posÃ©es par l'article 6 ont Ã©tÃ© remplies Ã suffisance .
Cette partie de la requÃ©te est donc manifestement mal fondÃ©e ou incompatible avec les dispositions de la Convention . 16 La Commission a d'abord examinÃ© si l'article 6 s'applique aux procÃ©dures en question . Elle rappelle que, dans l'affaire Engel et autres, la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme a dÃ©clarÃ© que la Convention permet aux Etats d'Ã©tablir une distinction entre droit pÃ©nal et droit disciplinaire mais qu'elle-mÃªme a compÃ©tence pour s'assurer, sur le terrain de l'article 6, que le disciplinaire n'empiÃ©te pas indÃ»ment sur le pÃ©nal (ArrÃªt du 8 juin 1976, paragraphe 811 . La Cour a Ã©numÃ©rÃ© les critÃ¨res applicables, dans le domaine du service militaire, pour vÃ©rifier si une accusation donnÃ©e, Ã laquelle l'Etat attribue un caractÃ¨re disciplinaire, relÃ©ve nÃ©anmoins de la Â« matiÃ¨re pÃ©nale Â», telle que l'entend l'article 6 libid . paragraphe 82) . Les Ã©lÃ©ments dont la Cour a tenu compte sont : 1 . le point de a savoir si les textes dÃ©tinissant l'infraction incriminÃ©e appartiennent, d'aprÃ©s la technique juridique de l'Etat dÃ©fendeur, au droit pÃ©nal, au droit disciplinaire ou aux deux Ã la fois Â» ;
2 . Â« la nature mÃªme de l'infraction Â» ; 3 . Â« le degrÃ© de sÃ©vÃ©ritÃ© de la sanction que risque de subir l'intÃ©ressÃ© Â» 17 La Commission rappelle en outre qu'elle a, depuis lors, dÃ©clarÃ© dans l'affaire Kiss contre le Royaume-Uni' que ces critÃ¨res sont Ã©galement valables pour dÃ©terminer si une accusation disciplinaire en prison relÃ©ve du domaine Â« pÃ©nal Â» . Elle a estimÃ© que l'article 6 n'Ã©tait pas applicable aux procÃ©dures en question dans cet autre cas, oÃ¹ il s'agissait de propos mensongers et malveillants tenus contre un gardien ; or, une telle faute Ã©tait passible d'une ou de plusieurs des punitions liÃ©es Ã des privilÃ©ges pÃ©nitentiaires, y compris l adÃ©tenioclurp56jsaluetprdmisenpour 180jours au plus . La punition effectivement infligÃ©e avait comportÃ© notamment 80 jours de perte de remise de peine . La Commission a estimÃ© que les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires Ã©taient fondÃ©es Ã agir par voie disciplinaire ; en ce qui concerne la gravitÃ© de la punition, elle a formulÃ© les observations suivantes : a . . . la Commission estime que la perte de remise de peine ne constitue pas une privation de libertÃ© . Un dÃ©tenu, contrairement Ã quelqu'un effectuant son service militaire, est privÃ© de sa libertÃ© pour toute la durÃ©e de sa peine ; toute remise de cette peine pour bonne conduite est un simple privilÃ¨ge et la perte de celui-ci ne modifie en rien la justification initiale de la dÃ©tention Â» . La Commission avait remarquÃ© en outre qu'on ne pouvait dire que la sÃ©vÃ©ritÃ© de la peine Ã©tait sans rapport avec l'infraction et qu'au surplus Â« la seule sÃ©vÃ©ritÃ© de la sanction ne fait pas entrer l'infraction incriminÃ©e dans le domaine pÃ©nal n . RequÃªte NÂ° e724/73, Ddclaioro et Repporb 7, D . 55 .
18 . Dans la prÃ©sente affaire, le FequÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© accÃ»sÃ© d'abord de Â« mutinerie et d'incitation Ã la mutinerie Â», puis de Â« brutalitÃ©s- commises sur l . L'une et l'autre . infractions relÃ©vent des disposition apersond'ugiÂ»s du droit disciplinaire, Ã savoir les paragraphes 1 et 2 de l'article 47 du RÃ©gle-, ment pÃ©nitentiaire de 1964 . LadeuxiÃ©meinfraction au moins est rÃ©gie concurremment par le droit pÃ©nal puisqu'elle constitue le dÃ©lit de voies de .. , . , fait . . 19 .En ce qui concerne la Â« nature m@mÃ© n des infractions, que la Cour dÃ©crit comme un Â« Ã©lÃ©ment d'apprÃ©ciation d'un plus grand poids n, la Commission fait remarquer que l'une et l'autre infractions ont un caractÃ¨re disciplinaire 'dans la mesure oÃ¹ elles entrainent la violation d'une norme juridique rÃ©gissant la rriarche de la prison (voir arrÃªt Engel, par . 82) . Toutefois, la deuxiÃ¨me infraction au moins impliquait aussi une violation manifestement grave du droit pÃ©nal gÃ©nÃ©ral, Ã©lÃ©ment que la Commission estime important pour vÃ©rifier si le Â« disciplinaireÂ» n'empiÃ©te pas indÃ»ment sur le Â« pÃ©nal n . 20 Quant Ã la gravitÃ© de la sanction encourue, la Commission fait remarquer qu'en l'espÃ©ce, la sanction encourue Ã©tait plus sÃ©vÃ©re que les sanctions en jeu dans l'affaire Kiss et d'autres affaires posant des problÃ¨mes analogues qu'elle a eu Ã examiner par la suite' . L'une et l'autre fautes ont Ã©tÃ©classÃ©es comme Â« fautes particuliÃ©rement graves Â» dans le RÃ©glement pÃ©nitentiaire et, en vertu de l'article 52 (amendÃ©), la Commission des visiteurs peut infliger une sanction de perte de remise de peine dÃ©passant la limite de 180 jours, valable pour les autres infractions . ' Le maximum de remise de pÃ©ine qui peut Ãªtre accordÃ© Ã un dÃ©tenu est Ã©gal Ã un tiers de sa peine, c'est-8-dire, en l'espÃ©ce, Ã trois ans et quatre . mois ; dans cette limite, n'importe quelle perte de remise de peine pouvait Ã«tre infligÃ©e (du moins si aucune remise de peine n'avait dÃ©jÃ© Ã©tÃ© perduel . La sanction effectivement prononcÃ©e en l'espÃ¨ce a Ã©tÃ©, selon le requÃ©rant, de quelque 605 jours de perte de remise de peine, assortis d'une pÃ©riode de quelque 90 jours de dÃ©tentioncÃ©llulaire . 21 . Les faits de la prÃ©sente espÃ©ce sont donc diffÃ©rents de ceux de l'affaire Kiss ; tant en ce qui concerne la nature des infractions que la sÃ©vAritÃ© des sanctions en jeu, Ã©tant toutefois prÃ©cisÃ© qu'elles n'impliquent pas, conformÃ© en-menlÃ ajurispdcelComisda'freK,upivatond libertÃ© . Compte tenu de la gravitÃ© des deux infractions et des sanctions encourues, la Commission estime que le point de savoir si les procÃ©dures relÃ©vent du domaine Â« disciplinaire Â» ou du domaine Â« pÃ©nal Â» soulÃ©ve d'importantes questions d'interprÃ©tation et d'application de la Convention, qui ne peuvent Ãªtre tranchÃ©esque par unexamen au fond de cette partie de la requÃªte . â¢ Voir par exemple Reuu9le NÂ° 7161/75, X. c/RoYeume-Uni, Ddcmion du 3 mere 1378 ( non publiÃ©e) .
_19q-
22 . La Commission a examinÃ© ensuite l'argument du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur selon lequel cette partie de la requÃ©te est, au demeurant, manifestement mal fondÃ©e, puisque les prescriptions de l'article 6 ont Ã©tÃ© observÃ©es Ã suffisance . Toutefois, aprÃ¨s avoir examinÃ© les exposÃ©s des parties, elle estime que ce point pose Ã©galement d'importantes questions de fait et de droit qui appellent un examen au fond . 23 . Il s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃªte ne saurait Ãªtre qualifiÃ©e d'incompatible avec les dispositions de la Convention ni de manifestement mal fondÃ©e . Aucun autre motif d'iÂ«ecevabilitÃ© n'apparaissant, elle doit donc Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable . Contact avec un solicitor Ã propos de blessures corporelles et possibilitÃ© de consulter un mÃ©decin indÃ©pendant - A rt icles 6 et 8 24 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint ensuite de n'avoir pas Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã consulter un mÃ©decin indÃ©pendant ni Ã prendre contact avec ses solicitors aprÃ¨s avoir Ã©tÃ© blessÃ© le 16 septembre 1976 . Il allÃ©gue d'une part une violation de l'article 6 de la Convention dans la mesure oÃ¹ cet article garantit un droit d'accÃ©s aux tribunaux et d'autre part une violation de l'article 8 dans la mesure oÃ¹ il garantit le droit au respect de la correspondance . 25 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur soutient d'abord que le grief selon lequel le requÃ©rant se serait vu refuser la possibilitÃ© de consulter un mÃ©decin indÃ©pendant est irrecevable pour non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, le requÃ©rant ne s'Ã©tant pas adressÃ© au Ministre de l'IntÃ©rieur . Toutefois, la Commission relÃ¨ve qu'une requÃ©te analogue, prÃ©sentÃ©e au MinistÃ©re de l'IntÃ©rieur au nom de l'un des autres dÃ©tenus impliquÃ©s dans l'incident du 16 septembre 1976, a Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©e au motif qu'il n'est pas Â« d'usage au MinistÃ¨re d'autoriser les dÃ©tenus Ã se faire examiner par des mÃ©decins extÃ©rieurs Ã l'Ã©tablissement exceptÃ© . . . lorsque ceux-ci sont appelÃ©s pour consultation par le service mÃ©dical de la prison Â» . Vu cette pratique, la Commission admet qu'une requÃªte adressÃ©e au MinistÃ©re de l'IntÃ©rieur par le requÃ©rant pour demander Ã consulter un mÃ©decin indÃ©pendant n'aurait pas eu de chances raisonnables de succÃ¨s et que le requÃ©rant Ã©tait donc dispensÃ© de fair usage de cette voie de recours . 26 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur soutient au surplus que l'article 6 ne garantit pas un droit d'accÃ©s Ã un mÃ©decin indÃ©pendant . Il est exact que l'article 6 ne garantit, comme tel, aucun droit de ce genre . NÃ©anmoins, il apparaÃ®t que le requÃ©rant voulait consulter un mÃ©decin indÃ©pendant pour intenter une action devant un tribunal Ã propos des blessures qu'il avait subies . La question se pose donc de savoir si l'article 6 implique la mise Ã disposition d'un dÃ©tenu des facilitÃ©s nÃ©cessaires Ã la prÃ©paration d'une action civile, et notamment des facilitÃ©s de consultation d'un mÃ©decin en cas de lÃ©sions corporelles . Dans le contexte de la prÃ©sente affaire, la Commission estime qu'il faut considÃ©rer ce grief comme faisant partie intÃ©grante de l a
plainte formulÃ©e par le requÃ©rant selon laquelle il y a eu ingÃ©rence dans l'exercice effectif de son droit d'accÃ¨s aux tribunaux, tÃ©l que le lui garantit l'article 6, par . 1, de la Cohvention . 27 . La Commission relÃ©ve que le requÃ©rant n'a Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã prendre contact avec ses solicitors pour engager une procÃ©dure civile Ã propos de ses blessures qu'aux environs de novembre 1977, soit quatorze mois aprÃ©s l'incident de septembre 1976 . Cependant, commÃ© elle l'a dÃ©jÃ fait observer, on peut raisonnablement supposer que si le requÃ©rant s'Ã©tait montrÃ© coopÃ©ratif lors de la procÃ©dure d'enquÃ©tÃ¨ interne, il aurait obtenu l'autorisation de consulter ses solicitors quelque quatre ou cinq mois aprÃ¨s les Ã©vÃ©nements en question . La Commission relÃ©ve au surplus qu'une fois que le requÃ©rant aurait Ã©tÃ© partie Ã une procÃ©dure civile, il aurait pu, semble-t-il, consulter un mÃ©decin indÃ©pendant, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 34 A, par . 3, du RÃ¨glement pÃ©nitentiaire . 28 . La Commission rappelle que, dans l'arrÃ©t qu'elle a rendu dans l'Affaire Golder (Cour eutopÃ©enne des Droits del'Homme, sÃ©rie A, NÂ°- 18), la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme a dÃ©clarÃ© que l'article 6, par . 1 garantit Â« le droit Ã ce qu'un tribunal connaisse'de toute contestation relative Ã ces droits et obligations de caractÃ¨re civil Â«(paragraphe-36) . Elle a aussi dÃ©clarÃ© qu'Â« une entrave Ã l'exercice efficace d'un droit peut porter atteinte Ã ce droit mÃ©me si eÃle revÃªt un caractÃ©re temporaire n(paragraphe 26) . Elle a estimÃ© en outre que le droit d'accÃ¨s aux tribunaux Â« n'est pas absolu Â» mais qu'il y . a place pour des limitations implicitement admises Iparagraphe 38) . Elle a indiquÃ© aussi, en se rÃ©fÃ©rant Ã sa jurisprudence antÃ©rieure dans l'Affaire linguistique belge, que ces limitations ne doivent pas porter atteinte Ã la substance de ce droit . ., . 29~ AprÃ¨s avoir examinÃ© l'argumentation des parties Ã la lumiÃ¨re de la jurisprudence susmentionnÃ©e, la Commission estime que cette partie de la requÃªte pose d'importants problÃ©mes de fait et de droit qui ne -peuvent Ãªtre tranchÃ©s que par un examen au fond . Il se pose notamment la questiori de savoir si mettre ne serait-ce que quatre ou cinq mois pour accorder les facilitÃ©s nÃ©cessaires au dÃ©tenu pour qu'il intente son action devant les tribunaux est compatible avec l'article 6, par . 1 . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã correspondre avec ses avocats, des problÃ¨mes surgissent Ã©galement sur le terrain de l'article 8 de la Convention, qui garantit notam. ment le droit au respect de la correspondance . . La Commi's ion estime que 'cet e partie de la requÃªte ne saurait don c
Ãªtre qualifiÃ©e d'incompatible avec la Convention ni de manifestement'mal fondÃ©e . Aucun autre motif d'irrecevabilitÃ© n'apparaissant, elle doit donc Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable
. - 196 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 06/05/1978Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 47
 l'article 52
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 8
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 34
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 8