Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19770509-762876
Timestamp: 2017-04-27 02:03:35+00:00

Document:
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevable ; partiellement recevable ; requête jointe à la requête n° 6878/75Numérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 7628/76Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1977-05-09;7628.76 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 9-1) LIBERTE DE RELIGIONParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : BELGIQUETexte : APPLICATIQN/REQUÃTE NÂ° 7628/7 6 X . v/BELGIU M X . c/BELGIQU E DECISION of 9 May 1977 on the admissibility of ihe application DÃCISION du 9 mai 1977 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte
Article 6 paragraph 2 of the Convention : The Commission find9 that the conviction was based on a set of elements which were probative according to the law, but is not competent to pronounce itself on the value of the conclusions of the fact finding judge . Article 6, paragraph 3 (a) of the Convention : The information must relate to the material facts alleged against the accused and their legal qualification, without necessarily mentionning the evidence . It must enable the accused to prepare his defence . Article 6 paragraph 3 (b) of the Convention : The necessa ry time must be assessed on a different basis at each stage of the proceedings . In the present case, plea of nullity .
Article 6, paragraphe 2, de la Convention : La Commission constate que la condamnation a Ã©tÃ© prononcÃ©e sur la base d'un ensemble d'Ã©lÃ©ments probants aux yeux de la loi mais ne saurait se prononcer sur la validitÃ© des conclusions de fait du j^ge . Article 6 paragraphe 3, lettre a), de la Convention : L'information doit porter sur les faits matÃ©riÃ©ls mis Ã charge de l'accusÃ© et sur leur qualification juridique, sans mentionner nÃ©cessairement les Ã©fÃ©ments de preuve . Elle doit permettre Ã l'accusÃ© de prÃ©parer sa dÃ©fense . Article 6, paragraphe 3, lettre b), de la Convention : Le temps nÃ©cessaire doit Ãªtre Ã©valuÃ© sur une base diffÃ©rente pour les diverses phases de la procÃ©dure . En f'espÃ©ce, pourvoi en cassation .
(English : see p . 172)
Le requÃ©rant est mÃ©decin neurologue . // a Ã©tÃ© renvoyÃ© devant le tribunal correctionnel comme prÃ©venu d'attentat Ã la pudeur et outrage public aux mo=urs commis sur la personne de sept de ses parientes et condamnÃ© en mars 1975 Ã deux ans de prison et cinq ans de dÃ©chÃ©ance de certains droits civiques, le tribunal ayant considÃ©rÃ© la prÃ©vention comme Ã©tablie dans quatre cas . ll s'Ã©tait plaint devant le tribunal que l'ordonnance de renvoi n'indiquait pas avec une prÃ©cision suffisante les faits er actes consrirurifs des infractions. 1/ renouvela ce grief devant la cour d'appel de Gand, saisie par lui et par le mintstÃ©re public . En octobre 1975, la cour d'appel rejeta ce grief, considÃ©ra que les faits retenus par le premier juge Ã©taient Ã©tablis Ã suffisance et constituaient un dÃ©lit continu d'attentat Ã la pudeur mais non d'outrage public aux mcaurs, l'Ã©lÃ©ment de publicitÃ© faisant dÃ©faut . La cour d'appel confirma la peine prononcÃ©e. Le requÃ©rant se pourvur en cassation . Son avocat ne put consulter le dossier que durant un mois avant l'Ã©chÃ©ance du dÃ©lai pour prÃ©senter son mÃ©moire . Le pourvoi fut rejetÃ© en avril 1976.
EN DROI T 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint de n'avoir pas Ã©tÃ© informÃ© d'une maniÃ¨re concrÃ©te des faits et actes prÃ©cis qui, selon le ministÃ¨re public, constitueraient les infractions pour lesquelles on prÃ©tendait le poursuivre . II allÃ©gue Ã cet Ã©gard la violation de l'article 6, Â§ 3 lal, de la Convention, qui garantit notamment Ã tout accusÃ© le droit d'Ã¨tre informÃ© de la nature et de la cause de l'accusation portÃ©e contre lui . Ainsi que la Commission l'a dÃ©jA relevÃ©, il rÃ©sulte Ã l'Ã©vidence de cette disposition que dans le cadre du droit Ã un procÃ¨s Ã©quitable garanti par l'ensemble des prescriptions de l'article 6, l'accusÃ© a droit Ã Ãªtre informÃ© de la cause de l'accusation, c'est-A-dire des faits matÃ©riels qui sont mis Ã sa charge et qui sont Ã l'origine de son inculpation, et de la nature de l'accusation, c'est-Ã -dire de la qualification juridique des faits matÃ©riels IDÃ©c . Comm . sur requÃ«te NÂ° 524/59 Ofner c/Autriche, Rec . 5, p . 14) . L'information visÃ©e par cette disposition doit contenir les AlÃ©ments permettant Ã l'accusÃ© de prÃ©parer sa dÃ©fense IDÃ©c . sur requÃªte NÂ° 4080/69 c/Autriche, Rec . 38, p . 4), sans mentionner nÃ©cessairement toutefois les Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve sur lesquels est fondÃ©e l'accusation . En l'espÃ©ce, l'ordonnance de renvoi de la chambre du conseil, prise le . . . octobre 1974, mentionne (page 21 tout un ensemble de faits et circonstances permettant de soupÃ§onner que le requÃ©rant aurait soumis les victimes Ã Â« des entreprises immorales, soudalnes et imprÃ©vues auxquelles ellelsl n'(ont) pu physiquement se soustraire Â» au sens de l'article 373 du code pÃ©nal belge, tel qu'il a Ã©tÃ© interprÃ©tÃ© par la Cour de Cassation (Cass . 13 mars 1944, Pas . p . 251) . La qualification juridique des faits est, par ailleurs, clairement indiquÃ©e .
De l'avis de la Commission, le requÃ©rant Ã© tait ainsi suffisamment informÃ© des faits mis Ã sa charge pour prÃ©parer sa dÃ©fense . Au surplus, condamnÃ© en premiÃ¨re instance, le requÃ©rant a bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© en appel de nouveaux dÃ©bats judiciaires durant lesquels il Ã©tait parfaitement au courant des accusations portÃ©es contre lui, accusations qu'il a d'ailleurs tentÃ© de rÃ©futer point par point Icf ., dans le mÃ©me sens, DÃ©c . sur requÃªte NÂ° 1059/61 c/Pays-Bas, Ann . V, p . 262) . Un examen de ce grief ne permet donc pas de dÃ©celer l'apparence d'une violation de la Convention et en particulier de l'article 6, Â§ 3 lal . 2 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint de ce que la cour d'appel de Gand ait considÃ©rÃ© comme Ã©tabli, sans que la preuve en ait Ã©tÃ© rapportÃ©e, qu'il ait procÃ©dÃ© Ã des narco-analyses sans impÃ©ratif mÃ©dical . Se rÃ©fÃ©rant Ã la jurisprudence de la Commission concernant l'article 6, Â§ 2, de la Convention, il allÃ¨gue Ã cet Ã©gard la violation du principe de la prÃ©somption d'innocence, le juge n'ayant pas prononcÃ© la condamnation Â« sur base d'une preuve directe ou indirecte, suffisamment forte, aux yeux de la loi, pour Ã©tabli la culpabilitÃ© Â» IAffaire Autriche c/Italie - Rapport de la Commission - par . 179) . La pratique de narco-analyses contestÃ©e par le requÃ©rant constitue sans doute un Ã©lÃ©ment essentiel du dÃ©lit reprochÃ© . Il ressort cependant de l'arrÃªt de la cour d'appel que le placement partiel ou total des victimes sous narco-analyse est attestÃ© par les dÃ©positions des collaborateurs du requÃ©rant (page 9) et, pour partie, par les dÃ©clarations de l'accusÃ© lui-mÃªme au cours de l'instruction Ipage 81 ; que la caractÃ©re inusitÃ© et l'absence d'indication mÃ©dicale pour l'utilisation de ce procÃ©dÃ© a Ã©tÃ© mis en Ã©vidence par un collÃ¨ge d'experts . Dans ces conditions il n'y a pas lieu de douter en l'espÃ©ce que le juge ait prononcÃ© la condamnation sur base d'un ensemble de circonstances, indications et conclusions dont le rapprochement constituait des prÃ©somptions pouvant avoir valeur de preuve aux yeux de la loi, la validitÃ© des conclusions de fait du juge Ã©chappant par ailleurs au contrÃ´le de la Commission . Il n'y a guÃ©re d'indication que le juge, en remplissant ses fonctions, soit parti de la conviction ou de la supposition que le prÃ©venu avait commis l'acte incriminÃ© (cf . Affaire Autriche c/Italie - Rapport de la Commission, par . 179) . Un examen de ce grief ne permet donc pas de dÃ©celer l'apparence d'une violation de la Convention et en particulier de l'article 6, Â§ 2 . 3 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint encore de n'avoir disposÃ© en fait que d'un mois pour prÃ©parer son pourvoi en cassation, le dÃ©lai lÃ©gal Ã© tant de deux mois . La Commission a envisagÃ© ce grief sous l'angle de l'article 6, Â§ 3 (b) qui garantit Ã tout accusÃ© le droit de disposer du temps et des facilitÃ©s nÃ©cessaires Ã la prÃ©paration de sa dÃ©fense . Lorsqu'elle est appelÃ©e Ã examiner un grief de cet ordre, la Commission a normalement Ã©gard Ã la nature de la procÃ©dure et aux circonstances de fait de l'affaire . Le temps nÃ©cessaire Ã la prÃ©paration de la dÃ©fense doit Ãªtre Ã©valuÃ© su r
une base diffÃ©rente aux divers stades la procÃ©dure (cf . DÃ©c . sur requÃ¨te NÂ° 5523/72 - Huber c/Autriche, Rec . 46, p . 99) . En l'espÃ©ce, s'agissant d'un pourvoi en cassation, le requÃ©rant ne pouvait faire valoir que la violation Ã©ventuelle de la loi ou des vices de procÃ©dure . Son avocat a effectivement dÃ©posÃ© un mÃ©moire soulevant neuf moyens contenani chacun plusieurs branches . Un examen de ce grief et des circonstance de fait ne permet dÃ¨s lors pas de dÃ©celer l'apparence d'une violation de la Convention et, en particulier, de l'article 6, 5 3 Ibl . Il s'ensuit que la requÃªte est, dans son ensemble, manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, Â§ 2, de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commission DÃCLARELA REQUÃTEIRRECEVABLE .
Summary of the facts The applicant is a neurologist. He was sent for trial before the criminal court, on charges of attempted indecent assault and public outrage of morals in respect of seven of his patients . He was sentenced, in March 1975, to two years impn'sonment and destituted of certain civil right for a period of five years, as the Court held the charges establlshed in 4 cases . He complained to the Court that the order committing him for trial did not indicate with sufficient precrsion the acts and events constituting the offences. He repeated this complaint before the Ghent Court of Appeal, to which both the applicant and the public prosecutor referred the case . In October 1975, the Court of Appeal rejected the complaint, held that the facts established by the judge of first instance were sufficiently proved and constituted a continuing offence of indecent assault but not of public outrage of morals, since the element of publicity was lacking and confirmed the sentence. The applicanr lodged a plea of nullity . H!s lawyer could only consult the file during one month before the expiry of the delay for the filing of memorials . His plea was reiected in April 1976.
( TRANSL AT/ON)
THE LAl".' 1 . 1 he applicant complains that he was not clearly informed of the precise acts and events constituting the offences for which he was allegedly being prosecuted . In this connection he alleges a violation of Article 6, paragraph 3(a) of the Convention which guarantees (inter alial everyone charged with a criminal offence the right to be informed ot the nature and cause of the accusation against him . As the Commission has alreadv found . it is clear from this provision that as Dart of the riqht to a tair trial auaranteed bv Article 6 as a whole the accused is entitled to be informed of the cause of the accusation, i .e . the material facts alleged against him which are at the basis of the accusation, and of the nature of the accusation, i .e . the legal qualification of these material facts (Commission's Decision on Application No . 524/59 / Offner v/Austria, Collection 5, p . 14) . The information referred to in this provision should contain the material enabling the accused to prepare his defence (Decision on Application No . 4080/69 v/Austria, Collection 38, p . 4) without however necessarily mentioning the evidence on which the charge is based . In the instant case the trial order of the Court in Chambers of 11 October 1974 mentions on page 2 a whole series of facts and circumstances from which it could be deduced that the applicant had submitted his victims to "sudden, unexpected immoral assaults which they were physically unable to avoid" within the meaning of Article 373 of the Belgian Criminal Code as interpreted by the Court ot Cassation (Cass . 13 March 1944, Pas . p . 251) . Furthermore the legal qualification of the facts is clearly indicated . In the Commission's opinion the applicant was thus sufficiently informed of the accusations laid against him to prepare his defence . Furthermore, after being convicted at first instance, the applicant had a new hearing on appeal during which he was fully aware of the charges against him, which moreover he attempted to refute point by point (ct . in this sense Decision on Application No . 1059/6) v/Netherlands, Yearbook V, p . 261) . An examination of this complaint therefore discloses no appearance of a violation of the Convention and in particular of Article 6, paragraph 3(a) . 2 . The applicant complains that the Ghent Court of Appeal considered it established, without it having being proved, that he had undertaken narcoanalysis without compelling medical grounds . Reterring to the Commission's jurisprudence in respect of Article 6, paragraph 2 of the Convention he alleges a violation of the principe of presumption of innocence as the Court had not passed judgment "on the basis of direct or indirect evidence sufficiently strong in the eyes of the law to establish his guilt" (Austria v/Italy - Commission's Report paragraph 179) . The practising of narco-analyses, which the applicant denies, was no doubt an essential element of the offence charqed . It aooears however from the Cour t
of Appeal's judgment that the fact that he placed his victims totally or partially under narco-analysis is evidenced by the statements of his collegues (page 9) and in part by his own statements during the investigation (page 8) ; and that the unusual nature and absence of medical grounds for using this procedure had been clearly attested by a board of experts . In these circumstances there is no reason to doubt that in the instant case the Court convicted the applicant on the basis of a series of circumstances, indications and inferences which together constituted presumptions capable of being regarded as evidence by the law ; moreover the validity of the Court's inferences of fact are not subject to the Commission's control . There is practically nothing to indicate that the Court in fulfilling its functions started from the conviction or assumption that the accused had committed the acts of which he was charged (cf . Austria v/Italy - Commission's Report - paragraph 179) . An examination of this complaint therefore fails to disclose any appearance of a violation of the Convention and in particular of Article 6, paragraph 2 . 3 . The applicant further complains that he had only a month in which to prepare his appeal to the Court of Cassation instead of the statutory period of 2 months . The Commission considered this complaint from the point of view of Article 6, paragraph 3 Ib) which guarantees to every accused the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence . When required to examine a complaint of this type the Commission normally has regard to the nature of the procedure and the factual circumstances of the case . The time necessary for the preparation of one's defence must be assessed on a different basis at the various stages of the proceedings (cf . Decision on Application No . 5523/72 - Huber v/Austria, Collection 46, p . 99) . Being concerned in the instant case with a plea of nullity to the Court of Cassation the only grounds on which the applicant could rely were a violation of the law or defects in the procedure . In fact his counsel filed a statement of 9 grounds of appeal each subdivided into various branches . Accordingly an examination of this complaint and the factual circumstances did not disclose any evidence of a violation of the Convention and in particular of Article 6, paragraphe 3 (b) . It follows that the application as a whole is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph 2 of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commissio n
- 174 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 09/05/1977Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 373
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 6
 l'article 27