Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19840518-1027283
Timestamp: 2017-04-30 15:20:28+00:00

Document:
M. c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche M. c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Violation de l'Art. 5-4 ; Non-violation de l'art. 5-1 ; Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant ; Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationaleNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 10272/83Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1984-05-18;10272.83 Analyses : (Art. 34) VICTIME, (Art. 5-3) JUGE OU AUTRE MAGISTRAT EXERCANT DES FONCTIONS JUDICIAIRES, (Art. 5-4) INTRODUIRE UN RECOURS, (Art. 5-4) ORDONNER LA LIBERATIONParties : Demandeurs : M.Défendeurs : REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNETexte : APPLICATION/REQUF:TE NÂ° 10272/8 3 M . v/the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY M . c/RÃPUBLIQUE FÃDÃRALE D'ALLEMAGN E DECISION of 18 May 1984 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 18 mai 1984 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©t e
Article 5, paragraph 1(a) and (e) of the Convention : Preventive detention ordered by a judge for an indefinite period at the same time as a prison sentence, but to follow it, comes under Article 5, paragraph ) (a) . Such detention, ordered for psychiarric reasons, also-and primarily-falls within Anicle 5, paragraph I(e) . Article 5, paragraph 4 of the Convention : Where deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Anicle 5, paragraph I(e) is at issue, judicial review must be available at reasonable intervals (in this case, in which the applicant's condition was relatively stable, 10 to 12 months). In the absence of marked clwnge in the applicant's condition, the requirement of "speed" does not mean that an application for review which follows closely the previous review, must be decided speedily. Article 26 of the Convention : Where a deprivation of liberty for an indefinite period within the meaning of Anicle 5, paragraph I(e) is at issue, the rule conceming exhaustion of domestic remedies requires the applicant to have appealed rhe decisions confirming the continued detention . Article 5, paragraphe 1, litt . a) et e) de la Convention :[n dÃ©tention de sGretÃ© d'un dÃ©linquant pour une durÃ©e indÃ©terminÃ©e, prononcÃ©e par le juge en mÃªme temps qu'une peine de prison, ntais Ã subir aprÃ¨s celle-ci, relÃ¨ve de l'article 5 par . / a). OrdonnÃ©e pour des raisons psychiatriques, cette dÃ©tention de sAretÃ© relÃ¨ve aussi et principalement - de l'anicle 5 par . 1 e) . Ariicle 5, paragraphe 4, de la Convention : S'agissant d'une privation de libertÃ© relevant de l'article 5 par . / e), un contrÃ´le judiciaire doit pouvoir Ãªtre provoquÃ© pÃ©rfodiquement Ã intervalles raisonnables (en l'espÃ¨ce, /0 Ã 12 mois vu l'Ã©tat pe u
- t04 -
Ã©volutif de l'intÃ©ressÃ©) . En l'absence de changement notable de l'Ã©tat de l'imÃ©ressÃ©, l'esigence de cÃ©lÃ©ritÃ© ne signifie pas qu'il doit Ã©tre statuÃ© Ã bref dÃ©lai sur un recours introduit peu aprÃ¨s le rejet du prÃ©cÃ©dent . Article 26 de la Convention : S'agissant d'une privation de libertÃ© pour une durÃ©e indÃ©terminÃ©e relevant de l'article 5 par . l e) . la rÃ¨gle de l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours intemes exige que l'intÃ©ressÃ© ait recouru contre les dÃ©cisions conftrmant le maintien et dÃ©tention .
(jranÃ§ais : voir p ./f4)
The applicant is a stateless person of Hungarian origin who is born in 1925 and fled from Hungary in 1956 . After spending several years in Austria . he has been living in the Federal Republic of Germany since 1962 . He is at present detained in the psychiatric clinic of H . The applicant has a considerable criminal record . Since 1968 he got 17 criminal convictions including convictions for various traffic offences, theft, fraud and also two convictions in 1969 and 1972 for personal injuries and a funher conviction in 1972 for resistance against state officials . The above detention in a psychiatric clinic is a preventive measure ordered in connection with his latest conviction by the Regional Coun of T ., of 26 March 1980, from which he has not appealed and which therefore became final on 10 June 1980 . The court found the applicant guilty of three offences of aggravated theft, fraud and aggravated resistance against state officials . He had lived in an empty house in B . and had organised a bazar with goods stolen in the neighbourhood . When two policemen came to the house to investigate the matter, he threatened them with an axe and only after considerable efforts he could be calmed down and agreed to accompany the policemen to the police station . The coun obtained a written expert opinion on the applicant's state of mental health, dated 5 December 1979, from Dr D ., who was a medical officer (Landgerichtsarzt) of the Regional Court of Munich . In that written opinion, which was based on the criminal file and a medical examination carried out on 20 November 1979, the expert concluded that there were no signs of mental illness nor of physical nervous disease . This had already been confumed at various previous occasions : Thus the applicant had been transferred back to normal prison in 1972 after a period of observation in the psychiatric department of the prison of Straubing, on the ground that there were no signs of mental or physical disease . Also two examinations by a medical court officer Dr W . in 1978 had not revealed such diseases . The expert accordingly concluded that there were no reasons to assume a state of lacking or reduced criminal responsibility (ss 20 and 21 of the Penal Code) .
At the trial itself, however, the same expert came to a different view . He now stated that the applicant had acted in a state of violent emotion when threatening the policemen, and that he had therefore been unable to control himself and to realise the unlawfulness of his action . This was due to a latent tendency of the applicant to become aggressive in situations where he was driven into a corner, a tendency which could be considered as pathological . In such situations the applicant was dangerous for the public and for himself. It could not be excluded that he would also in future act in the same way . His criminal responsibility was by no means lacking, but it was considerably reduced, and this justified the taking of a measure under s . 63 of the Penal Code, i .e . the order for his preventive detention in a psychiatric hospital . The court followed the expert on this point and credited the applicant with reduced criminal responsibilitty when committing the offence of resistance . It had regard to this fact when meting out the sentence, a global prison term of 3 years . In addition the court ordered the applicant's detention in a psychiatric hospital, in accordance with s . 63 of the Penal Code, to be executed after serving the sentence by vinue of s . 67 (1) of the Penal Code, because the court considered that only the actual enforcement of the sentence could deter him from committing similar offences in the future . The applicant then served his sentence in the prisons of Straubing and NÃ¼rnberg . During this time, he did not make any troubles and was for several months occupied as a stone-mason outside the prison premises . A request for a retrial of his case which he made during this time was not successful . On 16 June 198 1 , the Munich Court of Appeal rejected an application which he made in this connection on the ground that it had not been presented by a lawyer . Before the completion of his prison term, the applicant applied for the suspension of the execution (Aussetzung der Vollsteckung) of the additional measure under s 63 of the Penal Code . After having obtained the advice of the NÃ¼rnberg prison doctor, the Regional Court of NÃ¼mberg-FÃ¼rth ruled on I July 1982 that the measure was still necessary in view of the applicant's state of mind which continued to be characterised by a latent aggressivity . On completion of the sentence on 23 September 1982, the applicant was therefore transferred to the closed department of the District Hospital of A . Already on 12 October 198Ã© the applicant requested his release, s ta ting that he had purged his penalty in good order, that he was perfectly healthy and sane, and that he was suffering from being placed as a normal and sane person in an environment of sick people .
The following day, the doctor competent for the applicant's department, Mr . M, sent a medical certificate to the Regional Court of T . in the following terms : "As the competent doctor of the department I consider Mr M . as a person who is neither insane nor suffering from a physical nervous disease . this in conformity with the previous opinions of Dr W and Dr D . He is unjustifiedly detained in a closed institution . " The public prosecutor of T . to whom this certificate was transmitted replied to Mr M . asking for a comprehensive expert opinion on the applicant's present state of health, having regard in particular to his dangerousness for the public . It was only after receipt of such an expert opinion that the matter could be put before the competent court . The District Hospital also sought a report from the social officer of the prison of Ndrnberg who replied on 17 January 1983 that the applicant's behaviour in prison had on the whole been satisfactory (beanstandungsfrei), but that he had occasionally been stubborn and emotional ("uneinsichtig and aufbrausend") due to his character and his poor knowledge of German . The applicant had in the meantime made numerous petitions to the court and various authorities including the Bavarian State Ministry of Justice and the Federal Minister of Justice, but had received only dilatory replies . On 12 December 1982 he swallowed a ball point pen in an effort to commit suicide and was temporarily transferred to the municipal hospital of A . After a couple of days, he was returned to the closed depanment of the District Hospital and then went on hunger strike which he interrupted a few days later after having received promises that his case would be examined .
A full psychiatric report, as requested by the T . public prosecutor, was prepared not by the applicant's treating doctor, Mr M, but by the District Hospital's Director, Dr G, who examined the applicant on 30 December 1982 . In this report, dated 1 I February 1983, reference was made to the criminal file and the medical records, including the various previous expert opinions and the District Hospital's own files . It was admitted on the basis of this material that there were no signs of a physical disease, nor of a physical nervous disease, a psychosis or other neurological defect . However, the applicant's behaviour including his writing of petitions, his attempted suicide, and his attitude towards the reporting expert showed that he had an abnormal querulous character which could be considered as pathological ("querulatorische abnorme Personlichkeitsstruktur mit Krankheitswert") . It could not be excluded due to this character and his Hungarian temperament that the applicant would in future again fall into emotional outbursts with criminal consequences . It was therefore necessary to observe and treat him for a period of 1 1/2 to 2 years before any final conclusions could be drawn . The premature interruption of the detention in a psychiatric hospital was therefore not justified as the conditions under s 63 of the Penal Code continued to exist . - 107 -
The applicant, assisted by a lawyer, filed objections against this expert opinion on 24 March 1983 . In particular he challenged the expert Dr G on account of his remarks concerning his "Hungarian temperament" which he considered as discriminatory . He furiher observed that the expert himself had concluded that he was not insane, that he had repeatedly been told that he was not, and that his petitions and other reactions were therefore understandable and could not be properly described as querulous behaviour . He also did not get any therapeutical treatment . He therefore requested a new expertise by an independent expert not associated with the psychiatric hospital in which he was detained . Before the competent Regional Court of A . could decide on the matter, the applicant on 27 March 1983 fled from the District Hospital in A ., but was apprehended the following day while attempt to cross the Austrian border illegally . He did not resist his arrest in any way and was placed in the nearest psychiatric hospital at G . During his flight, the applicant had broken his leg and on his arrival at the psychiatric hospital immediately asked to be treated for this accident, but was not even examined in this respect before the lapse of several days . He then was taken to another hospital and his leg was put in plaster . He states that he refused to speak to the Director of the psychiatric hospital, Dr R, for the reason that the latter was responsible for the obvious lack of medical care in the first few days after his arrival in this hospital . However, it was this same Dr R whom the Regional Court of A . asked to submit a supplementary psychiatric opinion . This was submitted on 26 May 1983 . It came to the conclusion that the applicant had an abnormal (psychopathical, sociopathical, irregular, disharmonic) character showing labile emotions, easy irritation, impulsive reactions, a tendency for emotional outbursts, stubbomness and querulous disposition . His behaviour was both psychopathological and based on a system of criminal attitudes, his dangerousness in the latter respect clearly prevailing over the psychopathological aspect . He needed treatment, as his emotional overreactions could to a certain degree be reduced by drugs, but he was not prepared to accept any treatment, as was shown by his refusalto speak with Dr R . Therefore his detention in a psychiatric hospital could only serve a security purpose, but not a therapeutical purpose . The security aim, however, did not necessarily require his detention in a psychiatric hospital, which from a medical point of view therefore was unjustified . On 6 June 1983 the applicant's lawyer commented on this expert opinion, stressing the result that in the expert's opinion the applicant seemed to be less a mental patient than a habitual criminal . This would support the view that his detention in a mental hospital was unjustified . The applicant further referred to certain contradictions between the expert's written opinion and his position at a court hearing which had taken place on 18 May 1983 where he had denied the pathological nature of the applicant's state of mind .
However, on 6 June 1983, the Regional Court of A . upheld the applicant's detention in a psychiatric hospital, ruling that a new application for judicial review could not be made before the expiration of 10 months, i .e . not before 7 April 1984 . The court noted that according to the concordant views of the two experts consulted there had been no change in the applicant's state of emotional lability and that there continued to be a danger of his committing severe criminal offences in future . As he was not prepared to accept treatment and refused to speak with his doctors, the security purpose of the detention was for the time being the primary ground for his detention . The view expressed by the expert Dr R that without therapy a detention in a psychiatric hospital was not justified was only valid from the medical point of view, but did not correspond to the legal situation because the law provided for the detention also of such mentally deranged criminals who were not accessible to treatment, for the protection of the public . The applicant appealed from this decision and again asked for the consultation of an independent expert . However, the NÃ¼mberg Court of Appeal confirmed the Regional Court's decision without dealing with the request for an additional expert opinion . The Court of Appeal's decision has not been submitted, but the applicant was infomted of its rationale on 12 August 1983 . His attempt to appeal further to the Bavarian Supreme Court failed because no appeal was given against the Court of Appeal's above decision . The applicant apparently has not filed a constitutional complaint against the latter decision . The applicant, who had in the meantime been transferred to the psychiatric hospital of H . managed to escape from that hospital in September 1983 . After having presented himself at the Secretariat of the Commission on 20 September, he was expelled by France and went to Switzerland, but from there he was also expelled and returned to the Federal Republic of Germany . He was then taken back to the psychiatric clinic of H . on 27 September 1983 . On 10 November 1983, he applied to the German authorities to suspend his detention and expel him to Hungary . On 15 November, he was told by the public prosecutor in T . that the competent aliens' authorities were considering whether an expulsion to Hungary was legally possible in his situation . In a further letter by the public prosecutor of 12 December 1983 he was told in reply to further similar requests that his request for release was inadmissible before the expiration of the 10 months waiting period fixed by the court . In the meantime the applicant had also contacted the competent Hungarian consulate who advised him on the repatriation procedure . However, he was eventually told that the Hungarian domestic authorities were not prepared to issue an entry permit for him in view of a death penalty which had been pronounced against him by an extraordinary military court on 15 August 1957 on account of his involvement in the revolt of 1956 . - 109 -
Complaints I . The applicant now complains first of all that he is unjustifiedly detained in a mental hospital . without being insane . He submits that the medical experts consulted in the detention proceedings were prejudiced against him, and that their opinions were manipulated in cooperation with the public prosecutor of T . In the case of expert Dr G, the applicant is dissatisfied that he replaced his treating doctor, Mr M, who had expressed a favourable opinion, that he prepared his expert opinion without a thorough medical examination, and finally that he adopted a discriminatory attitute against him as a Hungarian . In the case of Dr R, his objections are also based on lack of thorough examination and in particular on the fact that he had lost all confidence in this doctor because he had failed to treat him for his fractured leg when he arrived at G . The applicant is further aggrieved by the fact that his requests for an independent expert opinion by a psychiatrist outside the detaining institutions were rejected . The applicant maintains that in reality all the experts agree that he is not insane, and that they only hide behind far-fetched verbal constructions tojustify his detention nevertheless in order to keep their face in view of his having cited them before the Strasbourg organs . The fact that he has changed his attitude is shown by his behaviour during his detention as a convicted prisoner where he caused no trouble and was even allowed to work outside the prison premises with dangerous tools, without any doubts being expressed in this respect by either the prison administration or his fellow prisoners . He also did not react in a dangerous way when he was arrested at the Austrian border . 2 . The applicant also complains of his above detention because he believes that he has been wrongly convicted in 1980 by a biased judge who had already dealt with an earlier case against him in 1976 . 3 . On a different level, the applicant complains of the conditions of his detention, in particular the lack of adequate psychiatric treatment throughout the time he was being detained, the administration to him of transquillisers against his will on some occasions, the lack of medical care after his suicide attempt in A ., and again at his arrival in G . when he was left without treatment for his broken leg . The conditions of detention in H . where he has to work 8 hours daily in a concrete factory (for DM 192 .- per month) amount in his view to forced labour . He also complains of sadistic attitudes of the hospital wardens and of interferences with his correspondence (censorship of letters and refusal to use the telephone) . 4 . The applicant finally complains that he is hindered from leaving the Federal Republic of Germany . The applicant has not invoked any particular provisions of the Conventio n
THE LAW The applicant complains primarily that he is unjustifiedly detained in a mental 1. hospital although he is not a person of unsound mind . 2 . The Commission notes that the applicant's detention in a psychiatric hospital subsequent to the completion of his 3-year prison sentence was ordered by a judgment of the Regional Court of T . of 26 March 1980 . The applicant has complained of the relevant proceedings alleging in particular that he has been wrongly convicted and that the judge was biased . Insofar as these complaints could be considered under Art . 6(1) of the Convention, the Commission observes, however, that the applicant has not appealed from the above judgment and has therefore failed to exhaust the domestic remedies in accordance with Art . 26 of the Convention . His unsuccessful anempt in 1981 to obtain a retrial of the case cannot be taken into account as an effective remedy in the sense of this provision . This part of the application must accordingly be rejected under Art . 27 (3) of the Convention . 3 . The applicant's detention in a psychiatric hospital is based on his criminal conviction and therefore falls to be considered under Art . 5(1)(a) of the Convention as a "lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court" . However, in view of the fact that the detention is based on a finding of a state of unsound mind, it must in addition, and primarily, be considered under Art . 5(1)(e) (cf para 39 of the judgment of the E .C .H .R . of 5 November 1981 conceming the case of X v the UK, Series A, Vol 46) . In such cases, the following requirements must be fulfilled : the individual concemed must be reliably shown to be of unsound mind, that it to say, a true mental disorder must be established before a competent authority on the basis of objective medical expertise ; the mental disorder must be of a kind or degree warranting compulsory confinement ; and the validity of continued confinement depends upon the persistance of such a disorder (cf para 40 of the above judgment and para 39 of the judgment of 24 October 1979 in the Winterwerp case, Series A, Vol 33) . In the present case, the original detention order contained in the T . Regional Court'sjudgment was based on psychiatric expert advise submitted at the trial to the effect that the applicant had a pathological tendency for aggressiveness which made him dangerous for the public and for himself . Prior to the applicant's actual committal to a mental hospital, the continued existence of his deranged state of mind was confirmed by a decision of the Numberg Regional Court of I July 1982 which was based on a new medical report by the Niimberg prison doctor . The applicant did not appeal from either of these decisions which therefore became final . In these circumstances, the Commission can only find that the applicant has not exhausted the domestic remedies with regard to his committal to a mental institution, and it is therefore in principle barred from examining the question whether or not this committal was initially justified under Art . 5(1)(e) of the Convention . Insofar as the
applicant might be understood as complaining of this initial committal, his complaint must accordingly be rejected for non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies (Art . 27 (3) read in conjunction with Art . 26 of the Convention) . 4 . It is true that the applicant subsequently requested a judicial review of the continued lawfulness of his detention, and that this request led to a decision by the Regional Court of A . which on 6 June 1983 confirmed the detention order and fixed a waiting period of 10 months before a new judicial review could be undertaken . In reaching this decision, the Regional Court had regard to two psychiatric expert opinions, dated I I February and 26 May 1983 respectively . It is true that the experts consulted denied the existence of a genuine mental disorder based on a physical nervous disease or psychosis . They nevertheless found the applicant to be marked by a pathological aggressive character which made him dangerous for the public and himself . It was further stated that the applicant needed psychiatric treatment to stabilise his emotional overreaction, but that he refused to cooperate and was therefore inaccessible to treatment . In essence, his detention at present only served security purposes . While admitting that this might be unsatisfactory from the medical point of view, the coun found this to be a sufficient ground for the applicant's continued detention in a mental hospital, in order to protect the general public . This decision was confirmed on appeal in August 1983, and the applicant then had no further remedy to an ordinary court . The Commission notes, however, that he failed to lodge a constitutional complaint against the above decisions, and therefore again has not exhausted the domestic remedies with regard to the continued justification of his detention under Art . 5(1)(e) . Also this pan of the application must therefore be rejected as being inadmissible under An . 27 (3) of the Convention . 5 . A constitutional complaint, however, would not have been available to the applicant to assert his right under Art . 5 (4) of the Convention, namely the right to a speedy decision by a coun on the (continued) lawfulness of the detention . The Commission therefore finds that the applicant must be considered as having exhausted the domestic remedies at least in this respect, and it is accordingly required to detennine whether or not the procedure used was in conformity with the above provision . In this respect, the Commission recalls that under its own case law and that of the Coun the judicial review procedure envisaged by Art . 5 (4) must be available periodically and at reasonable intervals in cases where the detention is based on Art . 5(1)(e) (cf in particular para 55 of the Winterwerp judgment, loc cit, and para . 52 of the judgment in the case of X v UK, loc cit) . The Commission notes that in the presenacase the applicant in fact disposed of a periodical review of his detention . The legality was determined, at the applicant's request, prior to his actual committal to a mental hospital, in July 1982, and again in June 1983 following an application for release made in October 1982 . A funherjudicial review was envisaged in April 1984, following the expitation of the 10 months waiting period fixed by the court .-1 2-
The Commission further notes that both in July 1982, and in June 1983 the court took its decision only after having obtained medical advice . The applicant has in fact raised certain objections in this respect, and it is true that he was twice refused the consultation of an additional expert . The Commission nevertheless considers that the expert advice actually taken was sufficientin scope and nature to provide a reasonable basis for the courts' above decisions . 6 . The only remaining question therefore is whether the question of the legality of the applicant's detention has been determined speedily as required by Art . 5(4) . The nine months which elapsed between the applicant's request for release of 12 October 1982, and the Regional Court's decision on this request of 6 June 1983 at first sight appears rather long and unsatisfactory . The Commission notes, however, that the request was made only three months after the last judicial review, in July 1982, of the continued lawfulness of the detention order and only two weeks after the applicant's actual transfer to a mental institution which the decision of July was meant to confirm . The Commission considers that the judicial control envisaged by Art . 5 (4) of the Convention was incorporated in this decision, and that it was therefore not required under this provision to examine the same question again immediately after the execution of the measure so authorised . At least this was not necessary as long as there was no clear indication as to a substantial change in the applicant's state of mind . In these circumstances it was in principle sufficient to provide for a further judicial review of the lawfulness of the applicant's detention at appropriate intervals . In any event it must be noted that following the submission of a medical certificate favourable to the applicant on 13 October 1982, the authorities reacted imniediately by requesting a full expen report . The preparation of this expert opinion was somewhat retarded by the applicant's attempted suicide and hunger strike in December 1982, but it was then soon completed and submitted on 11 February 1983 . A decision would probably have been taken in April but this was made impossible by the applicant's flight . Since he was then detained in another hospital, it was not unreasonable to seek an additional expert advice from a psychiatrist of this hospital having regard in particular to the applicant's own previous request for an additional expert opinion . This new report was submitted without unreasonable delay on 26 May 1983, and the court's decision followed on 6 June 1983 . In the particular circumstances, it can still be accepted that this was a "speedy decision" . The fixing of a waiting period of 10 months before the next judicial control was not unreasonable having regard to the experts' prognosis on the development of the applicant's state of mind . The Commission therefore concludes that there is no appearance of any violation of Art . 5(4) of the Convention in this case, and any complaints by the applicant in this respect are therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art . 27 (2) of the Convention . - 113 -
7 . As regards the applicant's remaining complaints including his allegations concerning lack of inedical care, unsatisfactory conditions of detention, forced labour, interference with correspondence, and refusal to leave the country, the Commission is not required to carry out an examination as the applicant has clearly failed to exhaust any domestic remedies in all these respects . These parts of the application are therefore inadmissible under Art . 27 (3) of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
(TRADUCTION) EN FAIT Le requÃ©rant est un apatride d'origine hongroise, nÃ© en 1925 et qui a fui la Hongrie en 1956 . AprÃ¨s plusieurs annÃ©es passÃ©es en Autriche, il vit en RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne depuis 1962 . II est actuellement dÃ©tenu Ã la clinique psychiatrique deH . . Le requÃ©rant a un casier judiciaire chargÃ© . Depuis 1968, il a comptÃ© dix-sept condamnations pÃ©nales pour trafics divers, vols, fraudes, deux condamnations en 1969 et 1972 pour coups et blessures, et une autre condamnation en 1972 pour rÃ©sistance Ã des fonctionnaires de l'Etat . La dÃ©tention prÃ©citÃ©e dans une clinique psychiatrique est une mesure de sÃ»retÃ© ordonnÃ©e Ã la suite de sa demiÃ¨re condamnation par le tribunal rÃ©gional de T ., le 26mars 1980, contre laquelle il n'a pas exercÃ© de recours et qui est donc devenue dÃ©finitive le 10 juin 1980 . Le tribunal a dÃ©clarÃ© le requÃ©rant coupable de trois infractions, de vol qualifiÃ©, de fraude et de rÃ©sistance aggravÃ©e contre des fonctionnaires de l'Etat . Il s'Ã©tait installÃ© dans une maison inoccupÃ©e de B ., et avait organisÃ© un bazar avec des marchandises volÃ©es dans le voisinage . Lorsque deux agents de police se prÃ©sentÃ¨rent dans cette maison pour enquÃ¨te, il les menaÃ§a d'une hache, et il fallut des efforts considÃ©rables pour le calmer et lui faire accepter d'accompagner les policiers au commissariat . Le tribunal obtint un avis Ã©crit d'experts sur l'Ã©tat mental du requÃ©rant, en date du 5 dÃ©cembre 1977, signÃ© du Dr D ., conseiller mÃ©dical (Landgerichtsarzt) du tribunal rÃ©gional de MÃ¼nich . Dans cet avis Ã©crit, fondÃ© sur le dossier pÃ©nal et sur un examen mÃ©dical pratiquÃ© le 20 novembre 1979, l'expert conclut qu'il n'y avait aucun signe de maladie mentale ou nerveuse . Ce diagnostic avait Ã©tÃ© confirtnÃ© en diverse s - 114 -
occasions antÃ©rieures . Aussi le requÃ©rant avait-il Ã©tÃ© renvoyÃ© dans une prison normale en 1972, aprÃ¨s une pÃ©riode d'observation au dÃ©partement de psychiatrie de la prison de Straubing, au motif qu'il n'y avait chez lui aucun signe de maladie mentale ni physique . En outre, deux examens effectuÃ©s par un mÃ©decin attachÃ© aux tribunaux, le Dr W ., en 1978, n'avaient pas rÃ©vÃ©lÃ© non plus de telles maladies . L'expert conclut qu'il n'y avait aucune raison de croire Ã l'irresponsabilitÃ© ou une responsabilitÃ© pÃ©nale restreinte (anicles 20 et 21 du Code pÃ©nal) . Au procÃ¨s, cependant- le m@me expert exprima une opinion diffÃ©rente : le requÃ©rant avait agi dans un Ã©tat d'Ã©motion violente lorsqu'il avait menacÃ© les policiers, et il avait par consÃ©quent Ã©tÃ© incapable de se maitriser et de comprendre l'illÃ©galitÃ© de ses actes . Ces faits Ã©taient dus Ã une tendance latente chez le requÃ©rant Ã devenir agressif dans des situations oÃ¹ il se trouvait acculÃ©, tendance qui pouvait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme pathologique . Dans de telles situations, le requÃ©rant constituait un danger pour le public et pour lui-m@me . On ne pouvait exclure le risque qu'il pÃ¹t agir de la mÃªme maniÃ¨re Ã l'avenir . Il n'Ã©tait certes pas pÃ©nalement irresponsable, mais sa responsabilitÃ© Ã©tait considÃ©rablement restreinte, ce qui justifiait une mesure en vertu de l'article 63 du Code pÃ©nal, c'est-Ã -dire une dÃ©cision de dÃ©tention de sÃ»retÃ© en hÃ´pital psychiatrique . Le tribunal suivit l'expert sur ce point et n'attribua au requÃ©rant qu'une responsabilitÃ© pÃ©nale restreinte pour son acte de rÃ©sistance . Il tint compte de ce fait en prononÃ§ant une peine d'emprisonnement globale de trois ans . Il ordonna en outre la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant dans un hÃ´pital psychiatrique, conformÃ©ment Ã l'anicle 63 du Code pÃ©nal, dÃ©tention qui devait Ã©tre pratiquÃ©e aprÃ¨s accomplissement de la peine en vertu de l'article 67 (I) du Code pÃ©nal car le tribunal considÃ©rait que seule une application effective de la peine pourrait dissuader le condamnÃ© de commettre des infractions analogues Ã l'avenir . Le requÃ©rant a alors purgÃ© sa peine dans les prisons de Straubing et de Nuremberg . Au cours de cette pÃ©riode, il ne causa aucun dÃ©sordre et travailla pendant plusieurs mois comme niaÃ§on hors de la prison . Une demande en rÃ©vision de son procÃ¨s fut alors rejetÃ©e . Le 16 juin 1981, la cour d'appel de Munich Ã©carta une demande qu'il fit Ã ce sujet, au motif qu'elle n'avait pas Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©e par un avocat . Avant l'expiration de sa peine d'emprisonnement, le requÃ©rant demanda que fÃ»t suspendue l'exÃ©cution (Aussetzung der Vollstreckung) de la mesure additionnelle prise en vertu de l'article 63 du Code pÃ©nal . AprÃ¨s avoir obtenbu l'avis du mÃ©decin de la prison de Nuremberg, le tribunal rÃ©gional de Nuremberg-FÃ¼rth dÃ©cida, le IÂ° juillet 1982, que la mesure Ã©tait toujours nÃ©cessaire vu l'Ã©tat d'esprit du requÃ©rant, qui continuait de se caractÃ©riser par une agressivitÃ© latente . A la fin de sa peine, le 23 septembre 1982, le requÃ©rant a donc Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ© au service fermÃ© de l'hÃ´pital de district d'A . DÃ¨s le 12 octobre 1982, le requÃ©ran t - 115 -
demanda Ã Ã©tre libÃ©rÃ©, arguant qu'il avait purgÃ© sa peine paisiblement, qu'il Ã©tait en parfaite santÃ© physique et mentale, et qu'il souffrait, en tant que personne normale et saine d'esprit, de se trouver parmi des malades . Le jour suivant, le mÃ©decin chargÃ© du dÃ©partement oÃ¹ se trouve le requÃ©rant, le docteur M ., adressa au tribunal rÃ©gional un certificat mÃ©dical rÃ©digÃ© dans les termes suivants : - En tant que mÃ©decin chargÃ© du dÃ©partement, je considÃ¨re que M . M . comme une personne qui n'est ni malade mentalement ni n'est atteinte de maladie nerveuse physique, et je suis d'accord en cela avec les opinions antÃ©rieures du Dr W . et du Dr D . . Sa dÃ©tention dans un service fermÃ© est injustifiÃ©e . Â» Le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral de T ., Ã qui ce certificat avait Ã©tÃ© transmis, rÃ©pondit au Dr M . et lui demanda une expenise complÃ©te sur l'Ã©tat de santÃ© actuel du requÃ©rant, tenant compte en particulier du risque qu'il pouvait prÃ©senter pour le public . Une telle expertise Ã©tait nÃ©cessaire pour soumettre l'affaire au tribunal compÃ©tent . L'hÃ´pital de district demanda Ã©galement un rapport de l'assistance sociale de la prison de Nuremberg, qui rÃ©pondit le 17 janvier 1983 que la conduite du requÃ©rant en prison avait Ã©tÃ© dans l'ensemble satisfaisante (-beanstandungsfrei-), mais qu'il s'Ã©tait parfois montrÃ© entÃªtÃ© et Ã©motif (â¢ Uneinsichtig und aufbrausend . ) en raison de son caractÃ¨re et de sa mauvaise connaissance de l'aBemand . Le requÃ©rant avait entre-temps soumis plusieurs pÃ©titions du tribunal et Ã diverses autoritÃ©s, y compris le ministÃ©re de la Justice de BaviÃ¨re et le ministÃ©re fÃ©dÃ©ral de la Justice, et n'avait reÃ§u que des rÃ©ponses dilatoires . Le 12 dÃ©cembre 1982, il avala un stylo Ã bille dans l'intention de se suicider, et fut temporairement transfÃ©rÃ© Ã l'hdpita) municipal d'A . Au bout de quelquesjours, il fut renvoyÃ© au service fermÃ© de l'hÃ´pital de district, oÃ¹ il entama une grÃ¨ve de la faim, qu'il interrompit quelques jours plus tard, aprÃ¨s qu'on lui eÃ»t promis que son affaire serait examinÃ©e . Un rapport psychiatrique complet . tel que demandÃ© par le procureur gÃ©nÃ©ral de T ., fut prÃ©parÃ© non par le mÃ©decin traitant du requÃ©rant, le Dr M ., mais par le directeur de l'hÃ´pital de district, le Dr G ., qui examina le requÃ©rant le 30 dÃ©cembre 1982 . Dans son rapport, datÃ© du 11 fÃ©vrier 1983, il se rÃ©fÃ©rait au dossier pÃ©nal et mÃ©dical, Ã©voquant les diverses opinions d'experts antÃ©rieures et le dossier de l'hÃ´pital de district . Il reconnaissait, sur ces bases, qu'il n'existait pas de signe de maladie physique ni nerveuse, ni de psychose, ni d'autre dÃ©ficience d'ordre neurologique . Cependant, le comportement du requÃ©rant, notamment ses envois de pÃ©titions, sa tentative de suicide et son attitude vis-Ã -vis de l'expert auteur du rapport rÃ©vÃ©laient chez lui un caractÃ¨re chagrin anormal pouvant Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme pathologique (Â«querulatorische abnorme Perstinlichkeitsstruktur mit Krankheitswert-) . On ne pouvait exclure, en raison de ce caractÃ¨re et de son tempÃ©rament hongrois, que le requÃ©rant pÃ»t Ã l'avenir retomber dans des explosions Ã©motives qui pourraient avoir des consÃ©quences d'ordre pÃ©nal . Il Ã©tait donc nÃ©cessaire de le tenir en observatio n - 116 -
et en traitement pendant une pÃ©riode d'une annÃ©e et demie Ã deux ans avant de tirer des conclusions dÃ©finitives . L'interruption prÃ©maturÃ©e de la dÃ©tention en hÃ´pital psychiat ri que n'Ã©tait par consÃ©quent pas justifiÃ©e, l'Ã©tat de choses prÃ©vu par l'a rt icle 63 du Code pÃ©nal continuant d'exister . Le requÃ©rant, assistÃ© d'un avocat, formula des objections contre cette opinion d'expert le 24 mai 1983 . Il attaquait en particulier l'expert, le Dr G ., pour l'observation relative Ã son . tempÃ©rament hongrois-, qu'il estimait discriminatoire . Il remarqua encore que l'expert lui-mÃ¨me avait conclu qu'il n'Ã©tait pas malade mentalement, qu'on lui avait dit maintes fois qu'il ne l'Ã©tait pas, et ses pÃ©titions et autres rÃ©actions Ã©taient par consÃ©quent comprÃ©hensibles, et elles ne pouvaient Ã bon droit @tre assimilÃ©es Ã un comportement chagrin . En outre, il ne suivait aucun traitement thÃ©rapeutique . Il demandait donc une nouvelle expertise par un expen indÃ©pendant, non liÃ© Ã l'hÃ´pital psychiatrique dans lequel il Ã©tait dÃ©tenu . Avant que le tribunal rÃ©gional compÃ©tent d'A . pÃ»t se prononcer, le requÃ©rant s'Ã©vada de l'hÃ´pital de district d'A . le 27 mars 1983, mais fut repris le jour suivant en tentant de franchir illÃ©galement la frontiÃ¨re autrichienne . Il n'opposa aucune rÃ©sistance et fut placÃ© dans le plus proche hÃ´pital psychiatrique Ã G . . Dans sa fuite, le requÃ©rant s'Ã©tait fracturÃ© une jambe, et, dÃ¨s son arrivÃ©e Ã l'hÃ´pital psychiatrique, il demanda Ã Ãªtre traitÃ© pour cet accident : il ne fut examinÃ© Ã ce sujet que plusieurs jours aprÃ©s . Il fut alors conduit Ã un autre hÃ´pital et plÃ trÃ© . Il dÃ©clara avoir refusÃ© d'adresser la parole au directeur de l'hÃ´pital psychiatrique, le Dr R ., parce qu'il tenait celui-ci pour responsable de l'Ã©vidente carence de soins mÃ©dicaux dont il avait Ã©tÃ© victime au dÃ©but de son sÃ©jour dans cet hÃ´pital . C'est nÃ©anmoins Ã ce mÃªme Dr R . que le tribunal rÃ©gional d'A . demanda de foumir un avis psychiatrique supplÃ©mentaire . Celui-ci a Ã©tÃ© communiquÃ© le 26 mai 1983 . 11 concluait que le requÃ©rant avait un caractÃ¨re anormal (psychopathique, sociopathique, irrÃ©gulier, disharmonique) se traduisant par des Ã©motions labiles, une irritation facile, des rÃ©actions impulsives, une tendance aux Ã©clats, de l'entÃªtement et une disposition chagrine . Son comportement Ã©tait Ã la fois psychopathologique et fondÃ© sur un systÃ¨me d'attitudes dÃ©linquantes, sa dangerositÃ© Ã cet Ã©gard l'emportant nettement sur l'aspect psychopathologique . Il avait besoin de traitement, ses rÃ©actions excessives pouvant dans une certaine mesure Ãªtre tempÃ©rÃ©es par des drogues, mais il refusait tout traitement, comme le montrait son refus d'adresser la parole au Dr R . . Par consÃ©quent, sa dÃ©tention dans un h6pital psychiatrique ne pouvait servir qu'Ã des fins de sÃ©curitÃ©, et non Ã des fins thÃ©rapeutiques . Mais ces fins de sÃ©curitÃ© n'exigeaient pas nÃ©cessairement sa dÃ©tention dans un hÃ´pital psychiatrique, laquelle se trouvait ainsi mÃ©dicalement injustifiÃ©e . Le 6 juin 1983, l'avocat du requÃ©rant soumit des observations sur cet avi s d'expert, soulignant la conclusion du spÃ©cialiste selon laquelle le requÃ©rant semblai t - 117 -
Ã¨tre moins un malade mental qu'un dÃ©linquant rÃ©cidiviste . C'Ã©tait dire que sa dÃ©tention en hÃ´pital psychiatrique Ã©tait injustifiÃ©e . Le requÃ©rant a encore soulignÃ© certaines contradictions entre l'avis Ã©crit de l'expert et sa position lors d'une audience du tribunal qui avait eu lieu le 18 mai 1983 et oÃ¹ il avait niÃ© le caractÃ¨re pathologique de l'Ã©tat mental du requÃ©rant . Cependant, le 6 juin 1983, le tribunal rÃ©gional d'A . maintint la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant en h6pital psychiatrique, dÃ©clarant qu'une nouvelle demande de contrÃ´le judiciaire ne pourrait Ãªtre faite avant dix mois, c'est-Ã -dire pas avant le 7 avril 1984 . Le tribunal notait que, selon les avis concordants des deux experts consultÃ©s, il n'y avait eu aucune modification dans l'Ã©tat de labilitÃ© affective du requÃ©rant et que celuici risquait toujours de commettre des infractions graves . Comme il refusait d'Ã©tre traitÃ© et d'adresser la parole Ã ses mÃ©decins, sa dÃ©tention Ã©tait principalement justifiÃ©e, pour le moment, par des raisons des sÃ©curitÃ© . L'avis formulÃ© par l'expert, le Dr R ., que sans thÃ©rapie la dÃ©tention en h6pital psychiatrique ne se justifiait pas, ne valait que sous l'angle mÃ©dical ; il ne correspondait pourtant pas Ã la situation lÃ©gale car la loi prÃ©voyait Ã©galement la dÃ©tention de dÃ©linquants mentalement dÃ©rangÃ©s pour lesquels un traitement Ã©tait inopÃ©rant, pour la protection du public . Le requÃ©rant en appela de cette dÃ©cision et sollicita de nouveau la consultation d'un expert indÃ©pendant . Mais la cour d'appel de Nuremberg conftrma la dÃ©cision du tribunal rÃ©gional sans tenir compte de la demande de nouvelle expertise . L'arrÃ©t de la cour d'appel n'a pas Ã©tÃ© produit, mais le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© informÃ© de ses motifs le 12 aoÃ»t 1983 . Sa tentative de se pourvoir auprÃ¨s de la Cour suprÃªme de BaviÃ¨re Ã©choua car il n'y avait pas de recours contre la dÃ©cision prÃ©citÃ©e de la cour d'appel . Le requÃ©rant ne semble pas avoir formulÃ© de recours constitutionnel contre cette derniÃ¨re dÃ©cision . Il avait Ã©lÃ© entre-temps transfÃ©rÃ© Ã l'hBpital psychiatrique de H ., et parvint Ã s'en Ã©chapper en septembre 1983 . AprÃ¨s s'Ãªtre prÃ©sentÃ© en personne au SecrÃ©tariat de la Commission le 20 septembre, il fut expulsÃ© par les autoritÃ©s franÃ§aises et se rendit en Suisse . Il en fut Ã©galement expulsÃ© et retourna en RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne, oÃ¹ il fut reconduit Ã la clinique psychiatrique de H . le 27 septembre 1983 . Le 10 novembre suivant, il demanda aux autoritÃ©s allemandes de suspendre sa dÃ©tention et de l'expulser vers la Hongrie . Le 15 novembre, le procureur de T . lui indiqua que les autoritÃ©s compÃ©tentes pour les affaires touchant les Ã©trangers Ã©taient en train d'examiner si une expulsion vers la Hongrie Ã©tait lÃ©galement possible dans sa situation . Dans une nouvelle lettre du 12 dÃ©cembre 1983, le procureur disait, en rÃ©ponse Ã d'autres requÃªtes analogues, que sa demande de libÃ©ration ne serait recevable qu'Ã l'Ã©chÃ©ance de dix mois, selon le dÃ©lai fixÃ© par le tribunal . - 118 -
En attendant, le requÃ©rant avait Ã©galement pris contact avec le consulat hongrois compÃ©tent, qui le conseilla quant Ã la procÃ©dure de rapatriement . On lui fit savoir finalement que les autoritÃ©s nationales hongroises refusaient de lui octroyer un permis d'entrÃ©e en raison de la condamnation Ã mort qui avait Ã©tÃ© prononcÃ©e contre lui par le tribunal militaire extraordinaire le 15 aoÃ¹t 1957, en raison de sa participation au soulÃ¨vement de 1956 .
GRIEF S I . Le requÃ©rant se plaint d'abord d'Ãªtre dÃ©tenu injustement dans un h8pital psychiatrique sans Ã¨tre un aliÃ©nÃ© . Il estime que les experts mÃ©dicaux consultÃ©s dans la procÃ©dure de dÃ©tention avaient un parti pris contre lui et que leurs avis Ã©taient manipulÃ©s en coopÃ©ration avec le procureur de T . . Dans le cas de l'expert, le Dr G ., le requÃ©rant regrette qu'il ait remplacÃ© son mÃ©decin traitant, le Dr M ., qui avait exprimÃ© une opinion favorable ; il ajoute que le Dr G . a prÃ©parÃ© son avis d'expert sans procÃ©der Ã un examen mÃ©dical complet, et qu'enfin il a adoptÃ© une attitude discriminatoire contre lui en tant que Hongrois . Dans le cas du Dr R ., ses objections portent Ã©galement sur l'absence d'examen complet, et en particulier sur le fait qu'il a perdu confiance en ce mÃ©decin, qui avait nÃ©gligÃ© de le lraiter pour sa jambe cassÃ©e, lors de son arrivÃ©e Ã G . . Le requÃ©rant se plaint Ã©galement du fait que ses demandes d'expertises par un psychiatre indÃ©pendant extÃ©rieur aux institutions de dÃ©tention, ont Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©es . Le requÃ©rant soutient qu'en rÃ©alitÃ© tous les experts reconnaissent qu'il n'est pas malade mentalement, et qu'ils ne se retranchent derriÃ¨re des constructions verbales abusives que pour justifier sa dÃ©tention et garder la face, malgrÃ© le fait qu'il les a citÃ©s devant les organes de Strasbourg . Son changement d'attitude a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©montrÃ© par sa conduite au cours de sa dÃ©tention en tant que condamnÃ© : il n'a alors causÃ© aucun trouble et a mÃ¨me Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã travailler Ã l'extÃ©rieur de la prison avec des outils dangereux, sans qu'aucun doute n'ait Ã©tÃ© exprimÃ© Ã cet Ã©gard ni par l'administration de la prison ni par ses compagnons prisonniers . II n'a pas non plus rÃ©agi de maniÃ©re dangereuse lorsqu'il a Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ© Ã la frontiÃ¨re autrichienne . 2 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint Ã©galement de ladite dÃ©tention parce qu'il estime avoir Ã©tÃ© injustement condamnÃ© en 1980, par un juge qui Ã©tait de parti pris et qui avait dÃ©jÃ eu Ã connaitre d'une poursuite contre lui en 1976 . 3 . D'un point de vue diffÃ©rent, le requÃ©rant se plaint des conditions de sa dÃ©tention, et en particulier de l'absence de traitement psychiatrique appropriÃ©, pendant toute la pÃ©riode de sa dÃ©tention, du fait qu'on lui ait administrÃ© Ã l'occasion des tranquillisants contre sa volontÃ©, du manque de soins mÃ©dicaux aprÃ¨s sa tentative de suicide Ã A ., et de nouveau Ã son arrivÃ©e Ã G ., oÃ¹ on nÃ©gligea de le traiter pour sajambe brisÃ©e . Les conditions de dÃ©tention Ã H ., oÃ¹ il doit travailler huit heures parjour dans - 119 -
une cimenterie (pour 192 DM par mois) Ã©quivalent Ã son avis Ã un rÃ©gime de travail forcÃ© . Il se plaint Ã©galement d'attitudes sadiques chez les gardiens de l'hÃ´pital, d'immixtion dans sa correspondance (censure de ses lettres) et de refus d'utilisation du tÃ©lÃ©phone . 4 . II se plaint enfin d'@tre empÃªchÃ© de quitter la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne . Le requÃ©rant n'a pas invoquÃ© de dispositions particuliÃ¨res de la Convention .
EN DROIT 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint tout d'abord d'Ãªtre dÃ©tenu de maniÃ¨re injustifiÃ©e dans un hÃ´pital psychiatrique, bien qu'il ne soit pas une personne dÃ©rangÃ©e mentalement . 2 . La Commission note que la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant en hÃ´pital psychiatrique Ã l'Ã©chÃ©ance de sa peine de prison de trois ans a Ã©tÃ© ordonnÃ©e par un jugement du tribunal rÃ©gional de T . le 26 mars 1980 . Le requÃ©rant s'est plaint de cette procÃ©dure, allÃ©guant en particulier qu'il avait Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© Ã tort et que le juge Ã©tait de parti pris . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ ces griefs peuvent Ãªtre examinÃ©s Ã la luntiÃ©re de l'article 6 par . 1 de la Convention, la Commission observe que le requÃ©rant n'a pas recouru contre lejugement prÃ©citÃ© et n'a par consÃ©quent pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes, comme l'exige l'article 26 de la Convention . Sa tentative infmcmeuse d'obtenir, en 1981, une rÃ©vision du procÃ¨s ne peut Ãªtre prise en compte comme recours effectif au sens de cette disposition . Cette partie de la requÃªte doit par consÃ©quent Ã©tre rejetÃ©e en vertu de l'article 27 par . 3 de la Convention . 3 . La dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant en hÃ´pital psychiatrique rÃ©sulte de sa condamnation pÃ©nale et doit donc Ãªtre examinÃ©e au regard de l'article 5 par . 1 de la Convention, en tant que l'intÃ©ressÃ© Ã©tait â¢dÃ©tenu rÃ©guliÃ¨rement aprÃ¨s condamnation par un tribunal compÃ©tent . . Cependant, la dÃ©tention se fondant Ã©galement sur la constatation d'un Ã©tat de dÃ©rangement mental, il faut Ã©galement, et tout d'abord, examiner cette dÃ©tention au regard de l'article 5 par . I e) (voir par . 39 de l'arrÃªt de la Cour eur . D .H . en date du 5 novembre 1981, dans l'affaire X . c/Royaume-Uni, sÃ©rie A, vol . 46) . Dans de tels cas, les conditions suivantes doivent Ãªtre remplies : il doit Ãªtre sÃ©rieusement dÃ©montrÃ© que l'intÃ©ressÃ© est dÃ©rangÃ© mentalement, c'est-Ã -0ire qu'un dÃ©sordre mental rÃ©el doit Ãªtre Ã©tabli devant une autoritÃ© compÃ©tente, sur la base d'une expertise mÃ©dicale objective : le trouble mental doit Ã¨tre d'un type ou d'un degrÃ© qui justifie un intemement forcÃ© ; enfin, la lÃ©gitimitÃ© de la continuation de la dÃ©tention dÃ©pend de la persistance du trouble (voir par . 40 de l'arrÃªt prÃ©citÃ© et par . 39 de l'arrÃªt du 24 octobre 1979 dans l'affaire Winterwerp, sÃ©rie A, vol . 33) . En l'esp8ce, l'ordre de dÃ©tention initial contenu dans le jugement du tribunal rÃ©gional de T . se fondait sur un avis d'expert psychiatre formulÃ© lors du procÃ¨s e t
selon lequel le requÃ©rant avait une tendance pathologique Ã l'agressivitÃ©, qui le rendait dangereux pour le public et pour lui-mÃªme . Avant l'intemement effectif du requÃ©rant dans un hÃ´pital psychiatrique, la persistance de son dÃ©rangement mental a Ã©tÃ© confirmÃ©e par une dÃ©cision du tribunal rÃ©gional de Nuremberg, datÃ©e du tâ¢' juillet 1982 et fondÃ©e sur une nouvelle expertise mÃ©dicale effecmÃ©e par le mÃ©decin de la prison de cette ville . Le requÃ©rant n'a interjetÃ© appel d'aucune de ces dÃ©cisions, qui sont ainsi devenues dÃ©finitives . Dans ces conditions, la Commission ne peut que constater que le requÃ©rant n'a pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes pour ce qui touche Ã son internement en institution psychiatrique, et elle est donc en principe emp@chÃ©e d'examiner la question de savoir si son internement Ã©tait initialement justifiÃ© ou non en vertu de l'article 5 par . 1 e) de la Convention . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ il est admis que le requÃ©rant proteste contre cet intemement initial, sa plainte doit Ãªtre rejetÃ©e pour non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours intemes (article 27 par . 3 lu concurremment avec l'article 26 de la Convention) . 4 . II est vrai que le requÃ©rant a par la suite sollicitÃ© un contrÃ´le judiciaire de la lÃ©galitÃ© de son maintien en dÃ©tention, et que cette requÃªte a conduit Ã une dÃ©cision du tribunal rÃ©gional d'A . qui, le 6 juin 1983, a confirroÃ© l'ordre de dÃ©tention et fixÃ© un dÃ©lai de dix mois avant qu'un nouveau contrÃ´le judiciaire puisse avoir lieu . Pour prendre cette dÃ©cision, le tribunal rÃ©gional avait tenu compte de deux avis d'experts psychiatres, en date des 11 fÃ©vrier et 26 mai 1983 respectivement . Il est vrai que les experts consultÃ©s niÃ¨rent l'existence d'un vÃ©ritable dÃ©sordre mental fondÃ© sur une maladie nerveuse physique ou sur une psychose . Ils ont cependant constatÃ© que le requÃ©rant avait un caractÃ¨re pathologiquement agressif qui le rendait dangereux pour le public et pour lui-m@me . Ils dÃ©clarÃ¨rent en outre que le requÃ©rant avait besoin d'un traitement psychiatrique tendant Ã stabiliser ses rÃ©actions Ã©motives excessives, mais qu'il refusait de coopÃ©rer et Ã©tait p ar consÃ©quent inaccessible au traitement . Sa dÃ©tention n'Ã©tait plus justifiÃ©e, au fond, que par des raisons de sÃ©curitÃ© . Tout en admettant que cet Ã©tat de chose pouvait n'Ãªtre pas satisfaisant sous l'angle mÃ©dical, le tribunal estima que l'on avait des motifs suffisants de continuer Ã dÃ©tenir le requÃ©rant en hÃ´pital psychiatrique, pour la protection du public en gÃ©nÃ©ral . Cette dÃ©cision a Ã©tÃ© confirmÃ©e en appel, au mois d'aoÃ»t 1983, et le requÃ©rant n'a plus ensuite exercÃ© de recours auprÃ¨s d'un tribunal ordinaire . La Commission note cependant qu'il n'a pas forroulÃ© de recours constitutionnel contre les dÃ©cisions prÃ©citÃ©es et qu'ici encore il n'a pas Ã©puisÃ© les recours intemes quant Ã la justification de son maintien en dÃ©tention en venu de l'article 5 par. 1 e) . Cette partie de la requÃ©te doit donc Ãªtre rejetÃ©e Ã©galement comme irrecevable en vertu de l'article 27 par . 3 de la Convention . 5 . Le requÃ©rant n'aurait cependant pas Ã©tÃ© en mesure de prÃ©senter un recours constitutionnel pour faire valoir les droits que lui reconnaÃ®t l'article 5 par. 4 de la Convention, notamment le droit Ã une dÃ©cision Ã bref dÃ©lai par un tribunal quant Ã la lÃ©galitÃ© du maintien en dÃ©tention . La Commission constate donc que le requÃ©rant doit Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme ayant Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours internes au moins Ã cet Ã©gard, et elle est par consÃ©quent appelÃ©e Ã dÃ©terminer si la procÃ©dure employÃ©e Ã©tait conforme Ã la disposition prÃ©citÃ©e . - 121 -
A cet Ã©gard, la Commission rappelle que, selon sa propre jurisprudence et celle de la Cour, les possibilitÃ©s de contrÃ´le judiciaire envisagÃ©es par l'article 5 par . 4 doivent Ãªtre disponibles pÃ©riodiquement et Ã des intervalles raisonnables dans les cas oÃ¹ la dÃ©tention se fonde sur l'anicle 5 par . 1 e) (cf. en particulier le par . 55 de l'arrÃ©t Winterwerp, loc .cit . et le par . 52 de l'arT@t dans l'affaire X . c/Royaume-Uni, loc .cit .) . La Commission constate que dans le cas prÃ©sent le requÃ©rant disposait en fait d'un contrÃ´le pÃ©riodique de sa dÃ©tention . La lÃ©galitÃ© en a 8tÃ© dÃ©terminÃ©e, Ã la demande du requÃ©rant, en juillet 1982, soit avant son transfert effectif Ã un hÃ´pital psychiatrique, et de nouveau en juin 1983, Ã la suite d'une demande de libÃ©ration faite en octobre 1982 . Un nouveau contrÃ´le judiciaire Ã©tait envisagÃ©e en avril 1984, Ã l'Ã©chÃ©ance des dix mois de dÃ©lai fixÃ©s par le tribunal . La Commission constate en outre qu'en juillet 1982 et en juin 1983 le tribunal n'a pris sa dÃ©cision qu'aprÃ¨s avoir obtenu un avis mÃ©dical . Le requÃ©rant a en fait soulevÃ© certaines objections Ã cet Ã©gard, et il est vrai qu'on lui a par deux fois refusÃ© la consultation d'un expert supplÃ©mentaire . La Commission considÃ¨re nÃ©anmoins que l'avis d'expert qui fut effectivement demandÃ© suffisait par son caractÃ¨re et sa portÃ©e Ã fournir une base raisonnable aux dÃ©cisions prÃ©citÃ©es du tribunal . 6 . La seule question qui demeure Ã examiner est par consÃ©quent celle de savoir si la lÃ©galitÃ© de la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© d6terminÃ©e Ã bref dÃ©lai comme l'exige l'article 5 par . 4 . Les neuf mois qui se sont Ã©coulÃ©s entre la demande de libÃ©ration du requÃ©rant, en date du 12 octobre 1982, et la dÃ©cision du tribunal rÃ©gional relative Ã cette demande, en date du 6 juin 1983, paraissent Ã premiÃ¨re vue un dÃ©lai assez long et peu satisfaisant . La Commission note cependant que la demande n'a Ã©tÃ© faite que trois mois aprÃ¨s le dernier contrÃ´le judiciaire, opÃ©rÃ© en juillet 1982, de la lÃ©galitÃ© de l'ordre de maintien en dÃ©tention, et seulement deux semaines aprÃ¨s le transfert effectif du requÃ©rant Ã un hÃ´pital psychiatrique, que la dÃ©cision de juillet devait confirmer . La Commission considÃ¨re que le contrÃ´le judiciaire envisagÃ© par l'article 5 par . 4 de la Convention se trouvait incorporÃ© dans cette dÃ©cision et qu'il n'y avait par consÃ©quent pas lieu, en vertu de cette disposition, d'examiner de nouveau la mÃªme question immÃ©diatement aprÃ¨s l'exÃ©cution de la mesure ainsi autorisÃ©e . Du moins n'Ã©tait-ce pas nÃ©cessaire tant qu'il n'y avait pas d'indication claire d'un changement substantiel dans l'Ã©tat mental du requÃ©rant . Dans ces conditions, il suffisait en principe de prÃ©voir de nouveaux contrÃ´les judiciaires de la lÃ©galitÃ© de la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant Ã des intervalles appropriÃ©s . Il faut en tout cas noter qu'Ã la suite de la prÃ©sentation d'un cernificat mÃ©dical favorable au requÃ©rant, le 13 octobre 1982, les autoritÃ©s rÃ©agirent immÃ©diatement en demandant une expertise complÃ¨te . L'exÃ©cution de cette expertise a Ã©tÃ© quelque peu retardÃ©e par la tentative de suicide du requÃ©rant et par sa grÃ¨ve de la faim, en dÃ©cembre 1982, mais elle ful ensuite rapidement effctuÃ©e et le rapport soumis le 1 1 fÃ©vrier 1983 . Une dÃ©cision aurait probablement Ã©tÃ© prise en avril, mais elle ne put l'Ãªtre en raison de l'Ã©vasion du requÃ©rant . Comme il fut alors dÃ©tenu dans u n - 122 -
autre hdpital, il n'Ã©tait pas dÃ©raisonnable de demander un nouvel avis d'un psychiatre de cet Ã©tablissement, eu Ã©gard en particulier Ã la demande antÃ©rieure de nouvelle expenise formulÃ©e par le requÃ©rant lui-mÃ©me . Le nouveau rapport a Ã©tÃ© soumis sans retard dÃ©raisonnable, le 26 mai 1983, et la dÃ©cision du tribunal suivit le 6juin 1983 . Dans ces circonstances particuliÃ¨res, on peut encore admettre que le tribunal a statuÃ© â¢Ã bref dÃ©laiâ¢ . La fixation d'un dÃ©lai de six mois avant le prochain contrÃ´le judiciaire n'Ã©tait pas dÃ©raisonnable, eu Ã©gard au pronostic des experts sur l'Ã©volution de l'Ã©tat mental du requÃ©rant . La Commission conclut donc qu'il n'y a, en l'espÃ¨ce, aucune apparence de violation de l'article 5 par . 4 de la Convention et que les griefs du requÃ©rant Ã cet Ã©gard sont manifestement mal fondÃ©s, au sens de l'article 27 par . 2 de la Convention . 7 . Pour ce qui est des autres griefs du requÃ©rant, y compris ses allÃ©gations relatives au manque de soins mÃ©dicaux, aux mauvaises conditions de sa dÃ©tentinn, au travail forcÃ©, Ã l'immixtion dans sa correspondance et au refus d'autorisation de quitter le pays, la Commission n'est pas appelÃ©e Ã procÃ©der Ã leur examen, le requÃ©rant ayant, Ã l'Ã©vidence, omis d'Ã©puiser les recours intemes sur ces divers points . Ces parties de la requÃ©te sont par consÃ©quent irrecevables en vertu de l'article 27 par . 3 de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n
- 123 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 18/05/1984Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 63
 l'article 67
 l'article 63
 l'article 6
 l'article 26
 l'article 27
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 26
 l'article 5
 l'article 27
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 27
 l'article 27