Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19751002-685974
Timestamp: 2016-12-03 06:51:25+00:00

Document:
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Violation de l'Art. 6-1 ; Violation de l'Art. 8 ; Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisantNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 6859/74Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1975-10-02;6859.74 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 : BELGIQUETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 6859/7 4 X . v/BELGIUM X . c/BELGIQU E DECISION of 2 October 1975 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 2 octobre 1975 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©t e
Article 5, paragraph 1, litt . e of the Convention : Accused person in a state of mental deficiency within the meaning of the Belgian law of "DÃ©lense socia/e". Deprived of his liberty for an indefinite period by committal chamber of a criminal court. Detention in conformity with this provision .
Article 5, paragraph 4 of the Convention : lnternment for an indefinite period. Right to institute proceedings before a court . Social Defence Committee . Organisation and procedure . Court within the meaning of this provision . Article 5, paragraphe 1, litt . e de Ia Convention : lnculpÃ© dans un Ã©tat de dÃ©bilitÃ© mentale, au sens de la loi belge de dÃ©fense sociale . PrivÃ© de sa libertÃ© pour une pÃ©riode indÃ©terminÃ©e par la Chambre des mises en accusation . DÃ©tention conforme Ã cette disposition . Article 5, paragraphe 4 de ta Convention : Internement de durÃ©e indÃ©terminÃ©e . Droit de recours devant un tribunal . Commission de dÃ©fense sociale. Organisation et procÃ©dure. Tribunal au sens de cette disposition .
(fnglish : see p . 143)
EN FAIT (Extraits) Les faits de la cause peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit :
Le requÃ©rant nÃ© en 1925 vit sÃ©parÃ© de sa femme depuis janvier 1970 . La garde de ses enfants lui a Ã©tÃ© retirÃ©e par dÃ©cision judiciaire et il a Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© pour refus de contribuer Ã leur entretien . Le . . . mai 1972, Ã la suite d'un incendie qu'il avait volontairement allumÃ© Ã son domicile, dans un accÃ©s de rage et de dÃ©pit, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ© et placÃ© en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive .
Le . . . septembre 1972, la chambre des mises en accusation de Bruxelles a pris Ã l'encontre du requÃ©rant une dÃ©cision d'internement . Le pourvoi en cassation formÃ© contre cette dÃ©cision a Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ© le . . . fÃ©vrier 1973 . PlacÃ© provisoirement Ã l'annexe psychiatrique de la prison de Tournai, il a ensuite Ã©tÃ© envoyÃ© Ã Merksplas sur dÃ©cision de la Commission de DÃ©fense sociale de Tournai en date du . . . fÃ©vrier 1973 . A diverses reprises la Commission de DÃ©fens e
sociale a prolongÃ© la validitÃ© de l'internement . Ainsi le . . . juin 1974, au motif qu'il demeurait un rÃ©el danger que le requÃ©rant aille se venger sur sa femme . Le pourvoi en cassation dirigÃ© contre cette dÃ©cision a Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ© le . . . septembre 1974, la cour ayant constatÃ© que Â« les formes substantielles ou prescrites Ã peine de nullitÃ© avaient Ã©tÃ© respectÃ©es et que la dÃ©cision Ã©tait conforme Ã la loi" . Une nouvelle demande de mise en libertÃ© provisoire a Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©e fin novembre 1974 .
Les griefs du requÃ©rant peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le requÃ©rant se plaint du maintien arbitraire de son internement et de l'absence de toute garantie procÃ©durale devant la Commission de DÃ©fense sociale . Il fait valoir en particulier que le psychiatre de l'Ã©tablissement l'a examinÃ© au maximum cinq minutes avant chacune des sessions de la Commission de Difense sociale . Ce mÃ©decin serait en outre notoirement incompÃ©tent .
Le requÃ©rant a encore prÃ©cis Ã© - que son avocat n'Ã©tait pas prÃ©sent aux sessions de la Commission de DÃ©fense sociale de juin et novembre 1974 , - qu'il a Ã©tÃ© examinÃ© en 1973 par un mÃ©decin de son choix, mais qu'il n'a pu faire valoir l'avis de ce mÃ©decin devant la Commission de DÃ©fense sociale . EN DROIT (Extrait) Le requÃ©rant se plaint jensuiteJ du maintien arbitraire de son internement dans un Ã©tablissement de dÃ©fense sociale et de l'absence de toute garantie procÃ©durale devant la Commission de dÃ©fense sociale . A cet Ã©gard, la Commission observe en premier lieu que le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© privÃ© de sa libertÃ© par dÃ©cision de la chambre des mises en accusation, conformÃ©ment Ã l'anicle 7 de la loi belge de dÃ©fense sociale Ã l'Ã©gard des anormaux et dÃ©linquants d'habitude . Cette dÃ©cision a Ã©tÃ© prise aprÃ¨s expertise mÃ©dicale et la possibilitÃ© Ã©tait ouverte au requÃ©rant d'introduire une garantie de contradiction dans l'expertise mentale, en se faisant assister d'un mÃ©decin de son choix . Il n'y a dis lors aucune raison de douter que le requÃ©rant ait Ã©tÃ© privÃ© de sa libertÃ© conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 5, Â§ 1(e), qui autorise la dÃ©tention rÃ©guliÃ©re d'un aliÃ©nÃ© (cf . DÃ©cision sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te NÂ° 6692/74, D . R . 2/1081 . L'intÃ©ressÃ© se plaint du maintien arbitraire de cette dÃ©tention et de l'absence de recours devant un tribunal . Ce grief doit Ã©tre examinÃ© d'office sous l'angle de l'article 5, Â§ 4, qui garantit Ã "toute personne privÃ©e de sa libertÃ© par arrestation ou dÃ©tention le droit d'introduire un recours devant un tribunal, afin qu'il statue Ã bref dÃ©lai sur la lÃ©galitÃ© de sa dÃ©tention et ordonne sa libÃ©ration si la dÃ©tention est illÃ©gale Â» .
La Commission estime nÃ©cessaire de prÃ©ciser la portÃ©e de cette disposition, avant d'examiner si elle a pu Ã©tre mÃ©connue dans le cas d'espÃ©ce . A l'occasion d'une affaire concernant l'internement de vagabonds par mesure administrative, la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme (Cour Eur . D .H ., Affaires de Vagabondage, ArrÃ©t du 18 juin 1971, par . 75) s'est demandÃ© si l'article 5, Â§ 4 exige que deux autoritÃ©s s'occupent de cas rÃ©gis par lui, Â« Ã savoir celle qui ordonne la privation de libertÃ© et une seconde qui, ayant le caractÃ©re d'un tribunal, examine la lÃ©galitÃ© de cette mesure, Ã l'initiative de l'intÃ©ressÃ© Â» . Elle a estimÃ© que Â« si la dÃ©cision privativ e
- 140 _
de libertÃ© Ã©mane d'un organe administratif, l'article 5, Â§ 4 astreint sans nul doute les Etats Ã ouvrir au dÃ©tenu un recours auprÃ©s d'un tribunal, mais [que] rien n'indique qu'il en aille de mÃªme quand elle est rendue par un tribunal statuant Ã l'issue d'une procÃ©dure judiciaire . Dans cette derniÃ©re hypothÃ©se, le contrÃ´le voulu par l'article 5, Â§ 4 se trouve incorporÃ© Ã la dÃ©cision s . Et la Cour a conclu :Â« En dÃ©finitive, la Cour estime que l'article 5, Â§ 4 se contente de l'intervention d'un organe unique, mais Ã condition que la procÃ©dure suivie ait un caractÃ©re judiciaire et donne Ã l'individu en cause des garanties adaptÃ©es Ã la nature de la privation de libertÃ© dont il s'agit" libid . paragraphe 76 in fine) . La Commission estime que cette conclusion ne peut Ã©tre reprise telle quelle dans les affaires oÃ¹, comme en l'espÃ©ce, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© privÃ© de sa libertÃ© pour une durÃ©e indÃ©terminÃ©e . Ici, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© reconnu Â« anormal u par la chambre des mises en accusation qui, aprÃ©s avoir vÃ©rifiÃ© la matÃ©rialitÃ© des faits, a dÃ©cidÃ© de l'interner, eu Ã©gard Ã l'absence de responsabilitÃ© pÃ©nale . Dans un tel cas, l'article 5, Â§ 4, qui garantit le Â« droit d'introduire un recours Â» semble bien postuler le droit pour l'internÃ© de faire vÃ©rifier Ã un stade ultÃ©rieur la lÃ©galitÃ© de sa privation de libertÃ© prononcÃ©e par une autoritÃ© compÃ©tente, qu'elle soit administrative ou judiciaire . C'est Ã ce tribunal qu'il appartient en effet de dÃ©terminer la durÃ©e effective de l'internement en vÃ©rifiant si les conditions prÃ©vues par la loi un Ã©tat mental dÃ©ficient - sont (encore) rÃ©unies et justifient la prolongation de cet internement ou exigent au contraire une mise en libertÃ© . Sur ce point, la Commission se rÃ©fÃ©re aux lignes directrices du raisonnement dÃ©veloppÃ© par M . Welter dans son opinion individuelle annexÃ©e au Rapport de la Commission dans les Affaires de vagabondage : ct Dans les cas d'aliÃ©nation mentale, il est le plus souvent impossible de dÃ©terminer d'avance le temps pendant lequel la collocation sera nÃ©cessaire . On comprend donc qu'elle soit ordonnÃ©e pour un temps indÃ©terminÃ©, mais du mÃ¨me coup il semble indispensable de permettre Ã© la personne internÃ©e de demander Ã des intervalles raisonnables la rÃ©vision de la dÃ©cision initiale, que cette dÃ©cision soit administrative ou judiciaire . n(Cour Eur . D .H ., SÃ©rie B Affaires De Wilde, Ooms et Versyp, page 100) .
ConformÃ©ment Ã la loi belge susmentionnÃ©e, le requÃ©rant a pu demander Ã plusieurs reprises Ã une commission de dÃ©fense sociale de statuer sur ses demandes de mise en libertÃ© Ã l'essai . Bien qu'il rÃ©sulte implicitement de certaines de ses dÃ©cisions antÃ©rieures (cf . DÃ©cisions sur la recevabilitÃ© des requÃ©tes NÂ° 4625/70, Rec . 40 p . 21, et NÂ° 6692/74 - D .R . 2/108) qu'un tel recours rÃ©pond en principe aux exigences de l'article 5, 4, la Commission juge opportun d'examiner de faÃ§on plus dÃ©taillÃ©e , (il si la Commission de dÃ©fense sociale a, ir du point de vue de son organisafion, un caractÃ©re judiciaire rr, en ce sens qu'elle serait rt indÃ©pendante de l'exÃ©cutif et des parties en cause n (voir : Cour Eur. D .H ., ArrÃªt Neumeister du 27 .6 .1968, SÃ©rie A p .44Â§241 ;e t liil si la Commission de dÃ©fense sociale offre les garanties de procAdure d'un tribunal et si ces garanties ont Ã©tÃ© respectÃ©es dans le cas d'espÃ¨ce . lil La Commission de dÃ©fense sociale du point de vue de son organisation Chacune des commissions de dÃ©fense sociale comprend trois membres, nommÃ©s pour trois ans : un magistrat effectif ou honoraire qui en est le prÃ©sident, un avocat et un mÃ©decin, chacun d'eux ayant un ou plusieurs supplÃ©ants .
Le prÃ©sident et ses supplÃ©ants sont dÃ©signÃ©s par le premier prÃ©sident de la cour d'appel . Il s'agit habituellement d'un conseiller Ã la cour . L'avocat et ses supplÃ©ants sont choisis par le Ministre de la Justice sur deux listes de trois noms, prÃ©sentÃ©es l'une par le Procureur du Roi et l'autre par le bÃ tonnier .
Le mÃ©decin et ses supplÃ©ants sont dÃ©signÃ©s par le Ministre de la Justice larticle 12 de la Loi de dÃ©fense socialel . Par ailleurs, lorsqu'elles statuent sur une demande de mise en libertÃ©, les commissions de dÃ©fense sociale ne sont soumises Ã aucun contrÃ´le d'une autoritÃ© ou d'une juridiction administrative . Leurs dÃ©cisions peuvent uniquement Atre attaquÃ©es devant la Cour de cassation . La Commission constate que cet organe prÃ©sidÃ© par un magistrat professionnel, assistÃ© de deux reprÃ©sentants du barreau et de la pratique mÃ©dicale, n'est pas fondamentalement diffÃ©rent, dans son organisation, d'une cour du travail ou d'un tribunal de commerce, Ã cette rÃ©serve prÃ¨s que les membres n'appartenant pas Ã la fonction judiciaire sont nommÃ©s par le ministre et non par le Roi . Il n'y a pas de raison sÃ©rieuse de douter qu'elle soit indÃ©pendante de l'exÃ©cutif et des parties en cause, dans l'exercice quotidien de ses activitÃ©s .
(ii) La Commission de dÃ©fense sociale du point de vue de la procÃ©dure et des droits de la dÃ©fens e Il parait opportun de rappeler, briÃ©vement, le raisonnement de la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme dans son arrÃ©t du 18 juin 1971 (Cour Eur . D .H ., Affaires De Wilde, Ooms et Versyp CÂ« Vagabondage nJ, par . 78 et ss) : Lorsque la Convention emploie le mot Â« tribunal Â», elle s'en sert toujours pour dÃ©signer des organes Â« prÃ©sentant non seulement des traits fondamentaux communs, au premier rang desquels se place l'indÃ©pendance par rapport Ã l'exÃ©cutif et aux panies 1 . . .1 . mais encore les garanties d'une procÃ©dure judiciaire . Les modalitÃ©s de la procÃ©dure voulue par la Convention ne doivent cependant pas nÃ©cessairement Ã©tre identiques dans chacun des cas oÃ¹ celle-ci requiert l'intervention d'un tribunal . Pour trancher le question de savoir si une procÃ©dure offre des garanties suffisantes, il faut avoir Ã©gard Ã la nature paniculiÃ©re des circonstances dans lesquelles elle se dÃ©roule . rr
Comme il est de pratique courante dans ce genre d'affaires, les dÃ©bats devant la Commission de DÃ©fense sociale ont lieu Ã huis clos . Toutefois l'internÃ© est entendu par cette commission . Il est obligatoirement assistÃ© d'un avocat qui peut consulter le dossier, droit qui est refusÃ© le cas Ã©chÃ©ant Ã l'intÃ©ressÃ©, dans son propre intÃ©rÃ©t . Par ailleurs, l'intÃ©ressÃ© a la facultÃ© de se faire examiner par le mÃ©decin de son choix . Dans le cas d'espÃ©ce, le requÃ©rant Ã©tait effectivement assistÃ© d'un avocat qui a pu consulter le dossier et dÃ©poser un mÃ©moire, mÃªme s'il n'Ã©tait pas prÃ©sent lors de la comparution de l'internÃ© . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© entendu . Il a pu faire effectuer une contre-expertise par le mÃ©decin de son choix .
Il rÃ©sulte de l'ensemble de ces considÃ©rations que le requÃ©rant a pu faire examiner Ã intervalles raisonnables la lÃ©galitÃ© de son internement . La Commission de dÃ©fense sociale, qui apparait indÃ©pendante de l'exÃ©cutif et des parties en cause, a appliquÃ© une procÃ©dure Ã caractÃ¨re judiciaire adaptÃ©e Ã la nature particuliÃ©re de l'objet du recours . A cet Ã©gard, le fait que dans l'une de ses dÃ©cisions, la Commission de dÃ©fense sociale n'ait pas suivi l'avis de l'expert -psychiatre dÃ©signÃ© par l'internÃ© et le fait qu e
l'avocat n'ait pas assistÃ© Ã l'une des sessions de cett e commission ne suffisent nullement Ã rendre vraisemblable que la procÃ©dure aurait Ã©tÃ© inÃ©quitable et en particulier qu'elle n'ait pas Â« compris des examens mÃ©dicaux donnant pleine garantie d'objectivitÃ© et de compÃ©tence Â» (cf . Opinion commune sÃ©parÃ©e de MM . les Juges Balladore Pallieri et Verdross in Cour Eur. D .H . ct Vagabondage n, ArrÃªt du 18 .6 .1971 SÃ©rie A . p . 661 . L'examen du dossier ne permet donc de dÃ©celer, mÃªme d'office, aucune apparence de violation des droits et libe rtÃ©s garantis par la Convention, et notamment par son a rt icle 5, Â§ 4 . II s'ensuit que la requÃ©te doit Ãªtre rejetÃ©e sur ce point pour dÃ©faut manifeste de fondement, au sens de l'article 27, Â§ 2, de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n
DÃCLARE LA REOUETE IRRECEVABLE .
(TRANSLATION) THE FACTS ( Extracts ) The facts of the case may be summarised as follows : The applicant, born in 1925, is separated from his wife since January 1970 . He has been refused the custody of his children by a cou rt order and convicted for defaulting on maintenance contributions in their respect . On . . . May 1972 he committed arson on his own house , in a passionate and disappointed mood . He was arrested the same day and remanded in custody .
On . . . September 1972, the committal chamber of the criminal court of appeal (Chambre des Mises en accusationl in Brussels ordered the applicant's internment . The applicant's appeal on a point of law was rejected on . . . February 1973 . Initially placed in the psychiatric annex of the Prison in Tournai, the applicant was later interned in Merksplas, in pursuance of a decision by the Social Defence Committee (Commission de DÃ©fense Sociale) of Tournai . This Commission prolonged the validity of the internment on several occasions and, in particular, on . . . June 1974, on the ground that there was a persistent danger of the applicant taking revenge against his wife . The appeal on points of law against that decision was rejected on . . . September 1974 by the Court of cassation on the finding that "the procedural guarantees or provisions without which the procedure would have been void had been respected and that the decision was in conformity with the law . . . " A further application for conditional release was rejected in November 197 4 The applicant's complaints may be summarised as follows :
The applicant complains of the arbitrary continuance of his detention and the absence of any procedural guarantees before the Social Defence Committee . He submits, in particular, that he was examined for five minutes only by the institution doctor before each session of the above Committee . That doctor would be manifestly incompetent .
The applicant fu rther indicates - that his barrister did not a tt end the hearings before the Social Defence Committee - that he was examined in 1973 by a doctor of his own choice . He could however not command respect for that medical report before the said Committee . THE LAW (Extract ) The applicants complains of his continued detention in a public protection institution I"Ã©tablissement de dÃ©fense socialÃ©'1 and the absence of any procedural guarantees before the commission regulating such matter . In this respect, the Commission notes firstly that the applicant was deprived of his liberty by a decision of the Committal court in accordance with Section 7 of the Belgian law of "DÃ©fense SocialÃ©" (public protection) in respect of mental defectives and recidivists . This decision was taken following medical expert opinion and it was open to the applicant to counter the psychiatric opinion with the assistance of a doctor of his own choice . Consequently there is no reason to doubt that the applicant was deprived of his liberty in accordance with Article 5 111 lel of the Convention which authorises the detention of persons of unsound mind (cf . the decision on the admissibility of application No . 6692/74, D .R . 2/108 ) . However the applicant complains of the arbitrary continuance of this detention and the impossibility of recourse to a court . This complaint must be examined, ex officio, under Article 5 (4) which guarantees that "everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful" . The Commission considers it necessary to specify the scope of this provision before examining whether it could have been breached in the present case . When the Court of Human Rights considered the case of the detention of vagrants in accordance with administrative regulations, it raised the question whether Art . 5 (4) requires "that two authorities should deal with the cases falling under it, that is, one which orders the detention and a second, having the attributes of a court, which examines the lawfulness of this measure on the application of the person concerned" (Eur . Court, H .R . "Vagrancy" cases, Decision of 18 June 1971, Serie A . para . 75) . The Court was of the opinion that "where the decision depriving a person of his liberty is one taken by an administrative body, there is no doubt that Art . 5 (4) obliges the contracting States to make available to the person detained a right of recourse to a court ; but (that) there is nothing to indicate that the same applies when the decision is made by a court at the close of judicial proceedings . In the latter case, the supervision required by Article 5 141 is incorporated in the decision" . The Court concluded that, "In sum, the Court considers that the intervention of one organ satisfies Article 5 (4), but on condition that the procedure followed has a judicial character and gives to the individual concerned guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question ." Ilbid . paragraph 76 in fine) .
The Commission is of the opinion that this conclusion cannot be sustained, as such, in cases like the present one, where the applicant has been deprived of his liberty for an indefinite period . Here the applicant was found to be mentally defectiv e
- 144 _
by the committal court which, having established the facts, decided to detain him, in view of his lack of criminal responsibility . In such a case, Article 5 (4) which guarantees the right "to take proceedings" certainly seems to encompass the right of the detainee to have the legality of his deprivation of liberty verified at a later stage by a tribunal whether it was ordered by an administrative or judicial authority . It is in fact the responsibility of such a tribunal to effectively determine the duration of the detention, by establishing that the conditions prescribed by law-a state of mental deficiency-are (still) satisfied and justify the continuation of the detention or, if not, require the release of the detainee . On this point the Commission refers to the guidelines of the reasoning developed by Mr Welter in his individual opinion annexed to the Report of the Commission in the "Vagrancy" cases :"In the case of inental derangement it is in most cases impossible to determine in advance the time for which detention will prove necessary . It is therefore understandable that it should be ordered for an indefinite period, but at the same time it seems essential to allow the person detained to apply at reasonable intervals for a review of the original decision, whether this decision was administrative or judicial" IEur . Court H .R ., Series B-Cases of Wilde, Ooms and Versyp, page 100) .
In accordance with the above mentioned law, the applicant was able on several occasions to ask a commission of "DÃ©fense sociale" to rule on his requests for a conditional release . Although it follows implicitly from certain of its previous decision (cf . the decisions on admissibility of applications Nos . 4625/70, Coll . 40, p . 21, and No . 6692/74, D .R . 2/108) that such recourse complies, in principle, with the requirements of Art . 5(4), the Commission considers that it is expedient to examine more closely li) if the Social Defence Committee (Commission de dÃ©fense sociale) has "from the point of view of its organisation, a judicial character", in the sense that it would be "independent of the executive and the parties to the proceedings" (Vide : European Court of Human Rights, Neumeister Judgement of 27 .6 .1968, Series A p . 44, para . 24) ; and fii) if the Social Defence Committee offers the procedural guarantees of a court and if these guarantees were respected in the present case . (i) The orgenisation of the Social Defence Committe e
Each Social Defence Comittee consists of three members appointed for three years : an actual or honorary magistrate who presides, a barrister and a doctor, each of them having one or several substitutes . The president and his substitutes are designated by the first president of the Court of appeal . It is usually a judge of appeal . The barrister and his substitutes are chosen by the Minister of Justice from two lists of three names, one submitted by the Crown Prosecutor, the other by president of the bar. The doctor and his substitutes are designated by the Minister of Justice (Article 12 of the law of "dÃ©fense sociale") . The Commission finds that this organ, presided over by a professional magistrate, assisted by two representatives ot the bar and medical profession, is not fundamentally different in its comosition from that of a labour court or a tribunal of commerce except that those members who do not belong to the legal profession are appointed by the Minister and not the King .
There is no reason to seriously doubt that this organ is independent of the executive and the parties to the proceedings in the daily exercise of their functions . liil The procedure and rights of defence before the Social Defence Committee It is appropriate to briefly refer to the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights in its judgement of 18 June 1971 (The "Vagrancy" cases of De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp, para . 78 ss .) :When the Convention uses the word "court" it does so to denote those bodies "which exhibit not only common fundamental features, of which the most important is independance of the executive and of the parties to the case ( . . .1, but also the guarantees of judicial procedure . The forms of the procedure required by the Convention need to, however, necessarily be indentical in each of the cases where the intervention of a court is required . In order to determine whether a proceeding provides adequate guarantees, regard must be had to the particular nature of the circumstances in which such proceedings take place . "
As is the current practice in this kind of case, the proceedings before the Social Defence Committee take place in camera . However the detainee is heard by this Committee . He is obliged to be assisted by a barrister who may consult the case file, a right refused, should the occasion arise, to the detainee in his own interest . In another connection, the applicant has the opportunity to be examined by the doctor of his choice . In this particular case the applicant was effectively helped by a barrister who was able to consult the case file and submit a memorial even if he was not present at the actual appearance of the detainee . The applicant was heard . He could have arranged a counter-expert opinion by a doctor of his choice . The conclusion which can be drawn from these considerations is that the applicant was able to have the legality of his detention examined at reasonable intervals . The Social Defence Committee which appeared to be independant of the executive and the parties to the proceedings, applied a procedure of a judicial character adapted to the special nature of the purpose of such proceedings . In this respect, the fact that in one of its decisions the Committee did not follow the opinion of the expert psychiatrist chosen by the applicant and the fact that the barrister did not attend one of the sessions of this Committee are by no means sufficient to raise doubts aboutthe fairness of the proceedings and, in particular, that they "did not include medical examinations fully guaranteeing objectivity and competence" (cf . the joint separate opinions of Judges Balladore Pallieri and Verdross in the "Vagrancy" Cases, European Court of Human Rights, Judgement of 18 .6 .1971, Series A p . 66) .
An examination of the case, including an examination made ex officio, does not herefore disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Conventionand, in particular, in Article 5 (4) . It follows, therefore, that this application must be rejected on this point as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art . 27 (2) of the Convention .
- 146 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (plénière)Date de la décision : 02/10/1975Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
in fine
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 27
in fine