Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19760521-723775
Timestamp: 2017-07-20 17:33:41+00:00

Document:
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 7237/75Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1976-05-21;7237.75 Analyses : (Art. 11) LIBERTE DE REUNION ET D'ASSOCIATION, (Art. 11-1) FONDER ET S'AFFILIER A DES SYNDICATS, (Art. 11-1) INTERET DES MEMBRESParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : DANEMARKTexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 7237/75 X . v/DENMARK X .c/DANEMAR K DECISION of 21 May 1976 (Striking off the list of cases) DÃCISION du 21 mai 1976 IRadiation du rÃ´le )
Article 3 of the Convention : Attempted suicide by foreigner about to be deponed to his home country . Residence permit granted by the respondent Government . Rule 43, paragreph 1, of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission : withdrawal of applicetion-Reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention -Striking off the list .
Article 3 de la Convention : Tentative de suicide commise par un Ã©tranger sur le point d'Ãªtre renvoyÃ© dans son pays d'origine. Autorisation de sÃ©jour accordÃ©e par le Gouvernement mis en cause. Article 43, paragraphe 1 du RÃ¨glement intÃ©rieur de la Commission : Retrait de la requÃªte - Motifs d'intÃ©rÃ©t gÃ©nÃ©ral touchant au respect de la Convention - Radiation du rdle .
(franÃ§ais : voir p . 149 1
The facts of the case as presented by the parties may be summarised as follows The applicant is an Iraqi national . He was born in K . in 1951 and he is a medical student . He has been receiving psychiatric treatment at the State Hospital of Aarhus, Denmark following an attempt to commit suicide in order to prevent his imminent departure from Denmark, and recently he was granted a residence permit for six months . He is represented before the Commission by Professor Peter Germer of Aarhus University .
It appears that the applicant entered Denmark on . . June 1975 for the purpose of participating in a training course at a hospital in Aarhus . He was provided with a visa for a stay of 90 days and departure not later than . . September 1975 . However, on . . July 1975 the applicant lodged a request for political asylum with the Aliens' Police at Aarhus . In connection with his request the applicant presented a declaration dated . . July 1975 from the Iraqi Ministry for Higher Education, according to which he was pursuing an education at the College of Medicine, Baghdad University, with good results . The Aliens' Police interviewed him on . . July and on . . August 1975 . During his interviews he said that on grounds of his education at an American college at Baghda d
from 1966 to 1969 he felt himself in conflict with the regime of his country . The applicant also mentioned that he had been forced to join the Government Party "Al-Baath Arab Socialist Party" . He had not wished to do so, as he was against the powers-that-be of his country . He explained that with regard to the invitation to join the Party he had been asked to supply information on his former school friends at the American college . He also said that he had had no difficulty in obtaining an exit permit from Iraq . In the course of the processing of his request for political asylum the applicant also indicated that he was contemplating suicide should he be forced to go back to Iraq . His request was forwarded to the Ministry of Justice and before a decision was taken by the Ministry a statement was solicited according to normal practice from the Danish Refugee Assistance Organisation, which stated that it was not against a rejection ot the applicant's request . On . . September 1975 the Ministry of Justice decided not to grant the applicant any residence or work permit in Denmark . The applicant was then summoned to the Aliens' Police Office at Aarhus on . . October 1975 and the decision was communicated to him . At the same time he was informed that he had to leave Denmark before November 1975 . The applicant requested the Ministry of Justice on . . October 1975 to reverse its decision or at least grant him a temporary residence permit while other applications of his were being considered by British and American authorities . For the purposes of this request the applicant consulted the Chief Medical Officer of the Mental Hospital at R ., Dâ¢ J ., who examined him on . . October 1975 . On that examination the doctor found that the applicant did not suffer from any kind of insanity but showed symptoms of nervous fear . The applicant's reflections regarding suicide gave the doctor the impression of being so well considered that he concluded that there would be a real risk of suicide if the applicant were to be sent back to Iraq . On . . October 1975 the Ministry informed the applicant that it upheld its decision of . . September 1975 and saw no basis for an extension of the time-limit . The applicant had then learned that he would be arrested and sent back to Iraq 'rf he did not leave for another country, and on . . November 1975 he tried to commit suicide by taking tablets containing a deadly double dose of Phenacetine . The applicant was found by a friend and taken to hospital . He was treated by dialysis since he resisted stomach pumping . On . . November he was transferred to the State Hospital of Aarhus for psychiatric treatment .
The applicant again addressed the Ministry of Justice but it would not change its decisions and informed him accordingly by letter of . . November 1975 . Apparently the Parliamentary Ombudsman was also seized with the applicant's case . It appears that the Ministry of Justice had in a letter of . . November 1975 told the Ombudsman that the departure of the applicant would not take place until it was possible and justifiable for reasons of health . Dr J . saw the applicant again several times . According to a report of . . November 1975, the applicant had through his attempt to commit suicide contracted a liver disease which would be of long duration and had also suffered damage to the kidneys and the blood system, but his prospects of recovery were good . The applicant was kept in a closed ward because he was still depressed and the danger of suicide was imminent .
At the request of the Danish Refugee Organisation the applicant was again interviewed by the police on . . January 1976 . Following this interview the applicant asked the Ministry of Justice, in a letter of . . January 1976, to reconsider the case . In this connection the Department for Supervision of Aliens arranged for a further examination of the applicant . Dr J . examined him and reported on . . January 1976 that he was still being kept in a closed ward since he presented a severe suicidal risk, but if he were permitted to remain in Denmark Ihaving been granted asylum) he would probably recover within a few weeks . If he did not get a residence permit, it was most likely that his condition would become increasingly worse and he would have to stay in hospital, and a protracted stay in hospital would tend to cause further deterioration of his mental state . On . . March 1976 the Minister of Justice decided to grant the applicant a permit for residence in Denmark . This decision was taken in the light of the medical documents on the applicant's present state of health . At the same time the Minister of Justice upheld his previous decision to the effect that there were no sufficient grounds for granting political asylum to the applicant in accordance with the Convention of 28 July 1951 relating to the Status of Refugees .
COMPLAINT S Originally the applicant submitted that due to the special circumstances of the case returning him to Iraq would constitute inhuman treatment in the sense of Art . 3 of the Convention . According to the applicant it had been reported that dissidents of the Al-Baath Party were executed in May 1975 . He also submitted an excerpt from the Amnesty International Annual Report 1974/75 and he pointed out that it appears from that report concerning Iraq that the making of an appeal to a foreigner or to a foreign organisation was in 1975 made an offence punishable by death . With particular reference to the medical certificate of . . January 1975, it was submitted that a continuation of the applicant's miserable situation was also inhuman treatment under Art . 3 . However, when the applicant was informed that he had been granted a residence permit (for six months) he notified the Commission that he would not therefore maintain his application but wished to withdraw it .
THE PROCEEDING S The application arrived on 29 October 1975 and on the same date the Rapporteur carried out his preliminary examination of its admissibility . The Rapporteur decided that before he could complete his examination, further information from the Danish Government would be required, in accordance with Rule 42 (2) a . of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, with regard to a the grounds for rejecting the applicant's request for political asylum and b . the Government's assessment of the applicant's fears that he would be subjected to serious danger on return to his country . The Rapporteur also indicated that he would appreciate receiving information as to the above matters before final action was taken with a view to the applicant's removal from Denmark to Iraq .
-146_
The Danish Government submitted the information requested on 31 October 1975. The applicant's comments in reply, dated 14 November, were received on'17 November 1975 . In the meanwhile, on 4 November 1975, Professor Germer informed the Commission that the applicant had attempted to commit suicide and asked that the Government be requested to delay the departure of the applicant . This new information and the submission was communicated to the Government for information and on 7 November 1975 the Commission's President considered the matter and decided that no interim measure, in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, seemed desirable at the present stage of the proceedings . The decision was communicated to the parties on the same day . On the basis of the report dated 11 December 1975 and provided for in Rule 40 the Commission began its examination on the admissibility of the application on 10 December 1975 . Having obtained information that the Minister of Justice had stated that the applicant would only be sent abroad when this was possible and reasonable, having regard to his state of health, the Commission decided on 19 December 1975 to request information from the Danish Government under Rule 42 (2) a . as to a . their assessement of the applicant's state of health, physical as well as mental : b . any indication as to the duration of the applicant's treatment in Denmark ; and c . the degree of physical and mental recovery required on the part of the applicant before arranging his departure . The time limit was set at 17 January 1976 . The Commission also decided to continue its examination of the application at its next session beginning on 4 March 1976, and to indicate to the Government, referring to Rule 36, that it would appreciate it if the Government would delay the applicant's removal to his home country until the Commission had had the opportunity of resuming its examination of the case .
On 19 January 1976 the respondent Government informed the Commission that their reply would be delayed since necessary medical certificates had not as yet been received by the Danish authorities concerned . This was brought to the attention of the Commission's President, who in order to secure the procedural requirements of Rule 42 121 a . agreed, on 23 January 1976, to extend the time limit until 2 February 1976 . The respondent Government submitted the information requested by letter of 29 January 1976 . The President fixed the time limit for the applicant's comments at 17 February 1976 ; the applicant submitted his comments in reply on 16 February 1976 and, on the instructions of the President, the Secretary requested some clarification which was submitted by the applicant on 1 March 1976 . The Rapporteur summitted his second report, provided for in Rule 40, to the Commission on 6 March 1976 and on 8 March 1976 the Commission resumed its examination of the application . It decided in accordance with Rule 42 (2) b . to give notice to the Danish Government of the application and it invited the Government to submit before 4 April 1976 their observations in writing on the admissibility of th . The Commission also instructed its Secretary to inform the Government eaplicton that it would give particular attention to any observations which the Government would wish to make as concerns the effectiveness of a court action under Rule 63 of the Danish Constitution and as concerns the present situation of the applicant seen against Art . 3 of the Convention .
The Commission also decided to give precedence to the application in accordance with Rule 28 111 of the Rules of Procedure, and to continue its examination of the application at its next session beginning on 13 May 1976 . The Commission also indicated that it would, referring to Rule 36, appreciate it if the Danish Government would delay the applicant's deportation until it had had the opportunity of again resuming its examination of the case . On 31 March 1976 the respondent Government informed the Commission that the applicant had now been granted a permit for residence in Denmark and they submitted that the reasons for his application no longer seemed valid and did consequently not find it necessary to submit further observations in writing on the admissibility of the application . In the light of this information the President of the Commission instructed the Secretary on 1 April 1976 to request the applicant to state, before 9 April 1976, whether he would still maintain his application . The President also suspended the time-limit for the submission of the respondent Government's observations . The applicant's legal representative telephoned on 9 April 1976 and informed the Secretary that the applicant wished to withdraw his application . The withdrawal was confirmed by letter of 12 April 1976 . On 21 April 1976 the President of the Commission decided that the decision of 8 March 1976 to request written observations on admissibility from the respondent Government should be suspended .
At its present session the Commission also has regard to the third report dated 13 May 1976 and provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure . THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIO N The Commission takes note that the applicant has withdrawn his applicatio n However, the Commission has regard to the general interest in the application and, in this connection, it notes that the information provided by the Danish Government threw new light on the position of the applicant in that it then appeared less serious in view of the fact that he was recommended by the Baghdad University and that he had obtained an exit permit from Iraq without difficulty . The Commission adds in particular that the Danish authorities before deciding the applicant's case obtained an independent opinion from the Danish Refugee Assistance Organisation . Moreover it was open to the applicant to go to another country other than Iraq and the Danish authorities were prepared to assist him in the solution of any practical problems relative to his departure .
The Commission recalls that after his attempted suicide on . . November 1975 the applicant submitted medical evidence showing that a . he was being kept in a closed ward since he presented a severe suicidal risk, but b . if he were permitted to remain in Denmark (having been granted asylum) he would probably recover within a few weeks . c . If he did not get a residence permit, it was most likely that his condition would become increasingly worse and he would have to stay in hospital, and a protracted stay in hospital would tend to cause further deterioration of his mental state . Here, the Commission observes that the Ministry of Justice was still considering the applicant's request for a reconsideration of his case and on 31 March 1976 the respondent Government informed the Commission that the Danish Minister of Justic e
had decided to grant the applicant a permit for residence in Denmark, and that the decision had been taken in the light of the medical evidence as to the applicant's present state of health . The Commission consequently finds that the applicant's grievance and th e object of his application have been adequately met, and there are no reasons of a general character affecting the observance of the Convention which would necessitate a further examination of the complaints before the Commission .
For these reasons, the Commissio n DECIDES TO STRIKE THIS APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES ~
(TRADUCTION) EN FAI T Les faits de la cause, tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©s par les parties, peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le requÃ©rant est un ressortissant irakien, nÃ© en 1951 et Ã©tudiant en mÃ©decine . Il a subi un traitement psychiatrique Ã l'hÃ´pital d'Etat de Aarhus (Danemark) aprÃ©s avoir tentÃ© de se suicider pour empÃªcher son dÃ©part imminent du Danemark . Il vient d'obtenir un permis de sÃ©jour de six mois . II est reprÃ©sentÃ© devant la Commission par le Professeur Peter Germer, de l'UniversitÃ© d'Aarhus . Le requÃ©rant est entrÃ© au Danemark le . . juin 1975 pour faire un stage dans un hÃ´pital d'Aarhus . Titulaire d'un visa de sÃ©jour valable 90 jours, il devait quitter le Danemark avant le . . septembre 1975 . Le . . juillet 1975, le requÃ©rant a dÃ©posÃ© une demande d'asile politique au Service de la police des Ã©trangers d'Aarhus . En liaison avec sa demande, le requÃ©rant a prÃ©sentÃ© une attestation du Ministre irakien de l'Enseignement supÃ©rieur, en date du . . juillet 1975, selon laquelle il poursuivait des Ã©tudes Ã la FacultÃ© de mÃ©decine de l'UniversitÃ© de Bagdad, avec de bons rÃ©sultats .
Les responsables de la police ont eu les . . juillet et . . aoÃ»t 1975 un entretien avec le requÃ©rant au cours duquel celui-ci dÃ©clara qu'en raison de son Ã©ducation dans un collÃ©ge amÃ©ricain de Bagdad, de 1966 Ã 1969, il se trouve en conflit avec le rÃ©gime de son pays . Le requÃ©rant mentionna Ã©galement qu'il avait Ã©tÃ© obligÃ© d'adhÃ©rer au Parti gouvernemental, le Parti socialiste arabe Baas, bien qu'il ne le dÃ©sir8t point puisqu'il Ã©tait opposÃ© au rÃ©gime en place dans son pays . II expliqua qu'en liaison avec l'invitation d'adhÃ©rer au Parti Baas, il avait Ã©tÃ© priÃ© de fournir des renseignements sur ses anciens condisciples au collÃ¨ge amÃ©ricain . II dÃ©clara Ã©galement ne pas avoir eu de difficultÃ©s Ã obtenir un visa de sortie d'Irak . Pendant que sa demande d'asile politique Ã©tait Ã l'Ã©tude, le requÃ©rant indiqua Ã©galement qu'il envisageait de se suicider s'il Ã©tait obligÃ© de retourner en Irak . Sa demande fut transmise au MinistÃ©re de la Justice qui, avant de prendre une dÃ©cision et conformÃ©ment Ã la pratique en pareil cas, demanda son avis Ã l'Organisation danoise d'assistance aux rÃ©fugiÃ©s, laquelle dÃ©clara ne pas Ptre opposÃ©e au rejet de la demande du requÃ©rant . Le . . septembre 1975, le MinistÃ©re de la Justice dÃ©cida de n'accorder au requÃ©rant ni permis de sÃ©jour, ni permis de travail au Danemark . Le requÃ©rant fut donc convoqu Ã©
le . . octobre 1975 par la police des Ã©trangers Ã Aarhus qui lui notifia cette dÃ©cision . Il fut informÃ© en mÂ®me temps qu'il devait quitter le Danemark avant le . . novembre 1975 . Le . . octobre 1975, le requÃ©rant demanda au MinistÃ©re de la Justice de rapporter sa dÃ©cision, ou du moins de lui accorder un permis de sÃ©jour temporaire pendant que les autoritÃ©s britanniques et amÃ©ricaines examinaient les autres demandes de visa qu'il avait dÃ©posÃ©es . Pour les besoins de sa demande, le requÃ©rant consulta le mÃ©decin-chef du Service psychiatrique de R ., le Docteur J ., qui l'examina le . . octobre 1975 . Le mÃ©decin conclut que le requÃ©rant ne souffrait nullement d'aliÃ©nation mentale mais montrait des sympt6mes de phobie . D'aprÃ©s les rÃ©flexions du requÃ©rant sur le suicide, le mÃ©decin eut l'impression que le requÃ©rant y avait mÃ¹rement rÃ©flÃ©chi et en conclut qu'il risquait rÃ©ellement de se suicider s'il devait Ã©fre rapatriÃ© en Irak . Le . . octobre 1975, le MinistÃ¨re informa le requÃ©rant qu'il confirmait sa dÃ©cision du . . septembre 1975 et ne voyait aucune raison de prolonger le dÃ©lai de sÃ©jour . Le requÃ©rant ayant alors appris qu'il serait arrÃ©tÃ© et renvoyÃ© en Irak s'il ne quittait pas le Danemark pour un autre pays tenta de se suicider le . . novembre 1975 en absorbant des comprimÃ©s contenant une double dose mortelle de phÃ©nacÃ©tine . Il fut trouvÃ© par l'un de ses amis et transportÃ© Ã l'hÃ´pital oÃ¹ il fut traitÃ© par dialyse, le lavage d'estomac Ã©tant inefficace dans son cas . Le . . novembre, il fut transfÃ©rÃ© Ã l'hÃ´pital d'Etat d'Aarhus pour y subir un traitement psychiatrique .
Le requÃ©rant adressa une nouvelle demande au MinistÃ¨re de la Justice, lequel ne modifia pas ses dÃ©cisions et en informa le requÃ©rant par une lettre du . . novembre 1975 . Il semble que l'Ombudsman Parlementaire ait Ã©tÃ© Ã©galement saisi de l'affaire . L e MinistÃ©re de la Justice l'informa en effet par lettre du . . novembre 1975 que le dÃ©part du requÃ©rant n'aurait pas lieu avant que l'on se soit assurÃ© qu'il Ã©tait possible et justifiÃ© p,our des raisons de santÃ© . Le docteur J . rÃ©examina plusieurs fois le requÃ©rant . Dans un rapport du . . novembre 1975, il dÃ©clara qu'en essayant de se suicider, le requÃ©rant avait contractÃ© une maladie du foie qui serait de longue durÃ©e, qu'il prÃ©sentait Ã©galement une affection des reins, du systÃ¨me de circulation sanguine mais avait de bonnes chances de se rÃ©tablir . Le requÃ©rant Ã©tait maintenu Ã l'isolement car il Ã©tait toujours dÃ©primÃ© et le risque de suicide Ã©tait imminent . A la demande de l'Organisation danoise des rÃ©fugiÃ©s, le requÃ©rant fut Ã nouveau interrogÃ© par la police le . . janvier 1976 . A la suite de cet entretien, le requÃ©rant demanda au MinistÃ©re de la Justice, par lettre du . . Ãanvier 1976, de rÃ©examiner son cas . Le Service de contrÃ´le des Ã©trangers demanda Ã cet effet un nouvel examen mÃ©dical du requÃ©rant . Le docteur J . procÃ©da Ã l'examen et rÃ©digea le . . janvier 1976 un rapport selon lequel le requÃ©rant devait Ã©tre maintenu en isolement Ã©tant donnÃ© qu'il prÃ©sentait un risque grave de suicide mais que, s'il Ã©tait autorisÃ© Ã demeurer au Danemark (en bÃ©nÃ©ficiant de l'asile politique) il se rÃ©tablirait sans doute en quelques semaines . Par contre, s'il n'obtenait pas un permis de sÃ©jour, il Ã©tait fort probable que son Ã©tat continuerait Ã empirer et qu'il devrait rester Ã l'hÃ´pital ; or un sÃ©jour prolongÃ© Ã l'hÃ´pital aurait tendance Ã dÃ©tÃ©riorer davantage son Ã©tat mental . Le . . mars 1976, le Ministre de la Justice dÃ©cida d'accorder au requÃ©rant un permis de sÃ©jour au Danemark . Il prit cette dÃ©cision au vu des documents mÃ©dicaux Ã©tablis sur l'Ã©tat de santÃ© actuel du requÃ©rant . En mÃ©me temps, le Ministre confirmait sa dÃ©cision antÃ©rieure selon laquelle il n'y avait pas, conformÃ©ment Ã la Convention du 28 juillet 1951 relative au statut des rÃ©fugiÃ©s, de raison suffisante d'accorder l'asile politique au requÃ©rant .
GRIEF S A l'origine, le requÃ©rant faisait valoir qu'en raison des circonstances particuliÃ©res de l'affaire, le renvoyer en Irak constituerait un traitement inhumain au sens de l'article 3 de la Convention . Selon le requÃ©rant, des dissidents du Parti Baas auraient Ã©tÃ© exÃ©cutÃ©s en mai 1975 . Il prÃ©senta Ã©galement un extrait du Rapport annuel d'Amnesty International pour 1974-1975 et souligna qu'il ressort de la partie du rapport concernant l'Irak que les appels lancÃ©s Ã des personnes ou Ã des organisations Ã©trangÃ¨res Ã©taient en 1975 un dÃ©lit passible de la peine de mort .
En se rÃ©fÃ©rant tout particuliÃ©rement au certificat mÃ©dical du . . janvier 1975, le requÃ©rant fit valoir que prolonger sa pitoyable situation Ã©tait Ã©galement un traitement inhumain au sens de l'article 3 . Toutefois, lorsque le requÃ©rant fut informÃ© qu'il lui Ã©tait accordÃ© un permis de sÃ©jour (de six mois), il fit savoir Ã la Commission qu'il ne maintiendrait pas sa requÃªte et qu'il dÃ©sirait la retirer .
PROCEDUR E La requÃ¨te parvint Ã la Commission le 29 octobre 1975 et, le mÃªme jour, le Rapporteur procÃ©da Ã l'examen prÃ©liminaire de la recevabilitÃ© . Il dÃ©cida que pour achever cet examen, il lui fallait, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 42, Â§ 2 a . du RÃ©glement intÃ©rieur de la Commission, obtenir du Gouvernement danois des renseignements complÃ©mentaires sur a . les motifs de rejet de la demande d'asile politique dÃ©posÃ©e par le requÃ©rant et b . l'apprÃ©ciation faite par le Gouvernement des craintes du requÃ©rant selon lesquelles il serait exposÃ© Ã des risques graves s'il rentrait dans son pays . Le Rapporteur indiqua Ã©galement qu'il souhaiterait recevoir ces renseignements avant que n'intervienne le renvoi dÃ©finitif du requÃ©rant en Irak . Le Gouvernement danois fournit les informations demandÃ©es le 31 octobre 1975 . La Commission reÃ§ut le 17 novembre 1975 les commentaires du requÃ©rant datÃ©s du 14 novembre 1975 . Entre-temps, le 4 novembre 1975, le Professeur Germer informa la Commission que le requÃ©rant avait tentÃ© de se suicider et lui demanda de prier le Gouvernement de retarder le dÃ©part du requÃ©rant . Cette nouvelle information et les observations qui l'accompagnaient ont Ã©tÃ© communiquÃ©es au Gouvernement pour information . Le 7 novembre 1975, le PrÃ©sident de la Commission examina l'affaire et dÃ©cida qu'Ã© ce stade de la procÃ©dure il ne paraissait pas souhaitable d'indiquer des mesures provi . soires au sens de l'article 36 du RÃ©glement intÃ©rieur . La dÃ©cision fut communiquÃ©e aux parties le mime jour .
La Commission entreprit le 10 dÃ©cembre 1975 l'examen de la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te, sur la base du rapport du 11 dÃ©cembre 1975, Ã©tabli conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 40 du RÃ©glement intÃ©rieur . InformÃ©e que selon le Ministre de la Justice le requÃ©rant ne serait expulsÃ© que lorsque ce serait possible et raisonnable compte tenu de son Ã©tat de santÃ©, la Commission dÃ©cida le 19 dÃ©cembre 1975 de demander au Gouvernement danois, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 42, Â§ 2a ., : a . des renseignements sur son apprÃ©ciation de l'Ã©tat de santÃ©, physique et mentale, du requÃ©rant ; b. des indications quant Ã la durÃ©e du traitement du requÃ©rant au Danemark ; et c . le degrÃ© de rÃ©tablissement physique et mental attendu du requÃ©rant avant qu'il puisse organiser son dÃ©part . Le dÃ©lai fut fixÃ© au 17 janvier 1976 .
La Commission dÃ©cida Ã©galement de poursuivre l'examen de la requÃªte Ã sa prochaine session qui devait commencer le 4 mars 1976 et d'indiquer au Gouvernement, en se rÃ©fÃ©rant Ã l'article 36 de son RÃ¨glement intÃ©rieur, qu'elle apprÃ©cierait que le Gouvernement retarde le renvoi du requÃ©rant vers son pays d'origine jusqu'Ã ce que la Commission ait eu l'occasion de reprendre l'examen de l'affaire . Le 19 janvier 1976, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur informa la Commission que sa rÃ©ponse subirait un retard, les autoritÃ©s danoises concernÃ©s n'Ã©tant pas encore en possession des certificats mÃ©dicaux nÃ©cessaires . Le PrÃ©sident de la Commission en fut informÃ© et, pour satisfaire aux exigences de procÃ©dure prÃ©vues Ã l'article 42, Â§ 2 a . du RÃ©glement intÃ©rieur, il dÃ©cida le 23 janvier 1976 de prolonger le dÃ©lai jusqu'au 2 fÃ©vrier 1976 . Par lettre du 29 janvier 1976, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur prÃ©senta les renseignements demandÃ©s . Le PrÃ©sident fixa au 17 fÃ©vrier 1976 la date limite du dÃ©pÃ´t des commentaires du requÃ©rant ; celui-ci les prÃ©senta le 16 fÃ©vrier 1976 et, sur instruction du PrÃ©sident, le SecrÃ©taire de la Commission demanda certains Ã©claircissements que le requÃ©rant fournit le 1^r mars 1976 . Le 6 mars 1976, le Rapporteur prÃ©senta Ã la Commission son deuxiÃ¨me rappon, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 40 et, le 8 mars 1976, la Commission reprit son examen de la requÃ©te . Elle dÃ©cida, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 42, 4 2b ., de donner connaissance de la requite au Gouvernement danois et de l'inviter Ã prÃ©senter par Ã©crit, avant le 4 avril 1976, ses observations sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te . La Commission chargea Ã©galement son SecrÃ©taire d'informer le Gouvernement qu'elle s'attacherait tout particuliÃ¨rement Ã examiner toute observation qu'il voudrait bien lui soumettre sur l'efficacitÃ© d'une action en justice fondÃ©e sur l'article 63 de la Constitution danoise, ainsi que sur la situation actuelle du requÃ©rant vue sous l'angle de l'article 3 de la Convention . La Commission dÃ©cida Ã©galement, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 28, Â§ 1 de son RÃ©gle . ment intÃ©rieur, de traiter la prÃ©sente requÃªte par prioritÃ© et d'en poursuivre l'examen Ã sa prochaine session devant commencer le 13 mai 1976 . Se rÃ©fÃ©rant Ã l'article 36, la Commission indiqua Ã©galement qu'elle apprÃ©cierait que le Gouvernement danois diffÃ¨re l'expulsion du requÃ©rant jusqu'Ã ce qu'elle ait eu l'occasion de reprendre l'examen de l'affaire .
Le 31 mars 1976, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur informa la Commission qu'il avait accordÃ© au requÃ©rant un permis de sÃ©jour au Danemark et, faisant valoir que les motifs de la requÃªte ne lui semblaient plus valables, il ne jugeait donc pas nÃ©cessaire de soumettre des observations Ã©crites complÃ©mentaires sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te . Au vu de ces informations, le PrÃ©sident de la Commission chargea le SecrÃ©taire le 1 - avril 1976 de demander au requÃ©rant de bien vouloir prÃ©ciser, avant le 9 avril 1976, s'il maintenait sa requÃ©te . Le PrÃ©sident suspendit Ã©galement le cours du dÃ©lai de prÃ©sentation des observations par le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur . Le 9 avril 1976, l'avocat du requÃ©rant tÃ©lÃ©phona au SecrÃ©taire que son client dÃ©sirait retirer sa requÃ©te . Le retrait fut confirmÃ© par lettre du 12 avril 1976 .
Le 21 avril 1976, le PrÃ©sident de la Commission dÃ©cida de suspendre sa dÃ©cision du 8 mars 1976 concernant les observations Ã©crites demandÃ©es au Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur sur la recevabilitÃ© . A sa prÃ©sente session, la Commission a Ã©galement pris connaissance d'un troisiÃ¨me rapport, datÃ© du 13 mai 1976, Ã©tabli en application de l'article 40 de son RÃ¨glement intÃ©rieur .
- 1 52 -
DECISION DE LA COMMISSIO N La Commission prend acte du retrait de la requÃªte par le requÃ©ran t Toutefois, tenant compte de l'intÃ©rÃ©t gÃ©nÃ©ral que prÃ©sente la requÃªte, la Commission relÃ©ve Ã cet Ã©gard que les renseignements fournis par le Gouvernement danois Ã©clairent d'un jour nouveau la situation du requÃ©rant qui apparaÃ®t moins grave puisqu'il est recommandÃ© par l'UniversitÃ© de Bagdad et a obtenu sans difficultÃ© un visa de sortie d'Irak .
La Commission tient Ã ajouter, notamment, qu'avant de prendre une dÃ©cision, les autoritÃ©s danoises on recueilli l'avis indÃ©pendant de l'Organisation danoise d'assistance aux rÃ©fugiÃ©s . En outre, le requÃ©rant a la facultÃ© de se rendre dans un pays autre que l'Irak et les autoritÃ©s danoises sont prAtes Ã l'aider Ã rÃ©soudre tous problÃ¨mes pratiques concernant ce dÃ©part . La Commission rappelle qu'aprÃ©s sa tentative de suicide le . . novembre 1975, le requÃ©rant a prÃ©sentÃ© un dossier mÃ©dical montrant que a . il Ã©tait maint,enu Ã l'isolement du fait qu'il prÃ©sentait un risque grave de suicide mais b . que s'il Ã©tait autorisÃ© Ã demeurer au Danemark (en bÃ©nÃ©ficiant du droit d'asilel, il se rÃ©tablirait sans doute en quelques semaines ; c . que s'il n'obtenait pas un permis de sÃ©jour, il Ã©tait fon probable que son Ã©tat continuerait Ã empirer, qu'il devrait rester Ã l'hÃ´pital et qu'un sÃ©jour prolongÃ© Ã l'hÃ´pital ne manquerait pas de dÃ©tÃ©riorer davantage son Ã©tat mental . Ici, la Commission fait observer que la demande formulÃ©e par le requÃ©rant de rÃ©examiner sa situation Ã©tait toujours Ã l'Ã©tude au MinistÃ©re de la Justice et que le 31 mars 1976, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a informÃ© la Commission que le MinistÃ©re danois de la Justice avait dÃ©cidÃ© d'accorder au requÃ©rant un permis de sÃ©jour au Danemark, dÃ©cision prise au vu du dossier mÃ©dical concernant l'Ã©tat de santÃ© actuel du requÃ©rant . . La Commission estime en consÃ©quence que les griefs du requÃ©rant et l'objet de sa requPte ont Ã©tÃ© convenablement satisfaits et qu'il n'existe pas de motif d'intÃ©rPt gÃ©nÃ©ral touchant au respect de la Convention qui nÃ©cessite la poursuite de l'examen des griefs devant la Commission .
Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DECIDE DE RAYER LA REOUETE DU ROLE .
- 1 53 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 21/05/1976Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 3
 l'article 3
 l'article 42
 l'article 36
 l'article 40
 l'article 42
 l'article 36
 l'article 42
 l'article 40
 l'article 42
 l'article 63
 l'article 3
 l'article 28
 l'article 36
 l'article 40