Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19820505-940381
Timestamp: 2016-10-22 07:16:44+00:00

Document:
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9403/81Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1982-05-05;9403.81 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) ACCUSATION EN MATIERE PENALE, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLEParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : ROYAUME-UNITexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 9403/8 1 X . v/the UNITED KINGDO M X . c/ROYAUME-UN I DECISION of 5 May 1982 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 5 mai 1982 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 5, paragraph I of the Convention The term "lawful detention" implies that the domestic law which permits it must be sufficiently accessible and enable the person concerned to foresee the consequences of his acts . Article 5, paragraph 1(f) of the Convention : Confronted with a law which allows for the detentiort perrding deportation of illegal entrants the Commission eramines whether the applicant was reallv an illegal entrant in order to establish whether the detenrion was "lawful".
Article 5, paragraph 4 of the Convention Leaving aside the question of the speed with which the Court nnrst decide (Â°speedily' ), the person who has in the meanwhile been released can no longer invoke this pmvision ;
Article 5, paragraphe 1, de la Conventlon L'expression . dÃ©terrtion rÃ©guliÃ¨re . implique que la loi nationale qui l'autorise doit Ãªtre suffisamment accessible et pernrettre Ã l'intÃ©ressÃ© de prÃ©voir les consÃ©quences de ses actes . Article 5, paragraphe 1, 11(t . f), de la Convention : Face Ã une loi qui autorise la dÃ©tention des immigrants clandestins en vue de leur expulsion, la Commission examine si le requÃ©rant Ã©tait rÃ©ellement un immigrant clandestin aux fins d'Ã©tablir si la dÃ©tention Ã©tait â¢ rÃ©guliÃ¨re . . Article 5, paragraphe 4, de la Convention Abstraction faite de la question du .bref dÃ©lai . dans lequel le tribunal doit statuer, la personne qui a Ã©tÃ© remise en libertÃ© ne peut plus se prÃ©valoir de cette disposition .
(f rancais : voir p . 239)
The applicant who claims to be a citizen of Pakistan states that he enrered the United Kingdom clandestinely in 1971 . In 1974 an amnesty was announced in favour of clandestine immigrants . The applicant applied for the amnesty and was granted indefinite leave to remain in 1975. On the basis of information provided bv an informant, whose identity was never disclosed to the app(icant . the immigration authorities came to learn subsequently that the applicant's real name was Y. who had entered the United Kingdom lawfully with a permission to stay as a visitor for ten days. It was therefore by usurping X's identity that the applicant has benefited from the amnesty, since the amnesty did not concern overstayers . The applicant was arrested in January 1978 as an illegal entrant pursuant to paragraph 16(2) Schedule 2 of the 1971 Act, which provides for the detention pending removal of illegal entrants . He was released two days later for the examination of his file . He was rearrested and redetained pending remova l in April 1978 and two months later he made an application for habeas corpus. He was conditionallv released and his application converted in an application for judicial review. The application was dismissed in October 1978 and the applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal. His appeal was dismissed in Februa ry 1980. After unsuccessfull representations to the Home Office, he was deported in February 1981 .
THE LAW (Extract ) Article 5(1 ) 3 . The applicant complains, under this provision, that the relevant legal rules governing his arrest and detention as an "illegal entrant" were not sufficiently certain or foreseeable and thus violate his right to "security of person" . He further submits that the right to security of person implies adequate judicial control of arrest and detention . In the alternative he submits that his detention was not "in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law" or "lawful" within the meaning of Article 5(1)(f) . 4 . In so far as is relevant for the present case, Article 5(1) states as follows : "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person . No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law :
(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition . " 5 . The Commission considers that the applicant's complaints in respect of "security of person" need not be examined separately since they are in substance covered by consideration of Article 5(1)(1) and 5(4) . 6 . The applicant was detained under paragraph 16(2), Schedule 2 of the 1971 Act pending the giving of directions for his removal as an illegal entrant . The removal of the applicant was the declared and uncontested purpose of his detention . It follows therefore that the 'lawfulness' of the detention was dependent upon whether the applicant was an "illegal entrant" liable to removal under the 1971 Act . It falls to be considered therefore whether the applicant was in fact an "illegal entrant" according to the law of the United Kingdom . 7 . The Commission notes that accounts of his entry to the United Kingdom vary . On the one hand the applicant claims that he entered the country clandestinely as X . in 1971 and benefited from an amnesty in 1975 . On the other hand the Immigration authorities considered that his real identity was that of Y . who, by presenting himself tothe authorities as X . had fraudulently obtained an amnesty for which he was ineligible . 8 . After a full analysis of the evidence presented by both parties the Court of Appeal concluded that the Secretary of State had reasonable grounds for finding that the applicant was an "illegal entrant" and thus liable for removal . It attached particular weight to the varying accounts that the applicant had provided the authorities of his journey from Paris to the United Kingdom in 1971 and the precision of the detailed information given by the informant .
9 . The Commission finds no evidence submitted by the applicant that puts this conclusion seriously in question and therefore considers that in this respect the applicant's detention is "lawful" within the meaning of Article 5(1)( 0 . 10 . The applicant has also submitted that his detention was unlawful because the legal rutes relating to the concept of "illegal entrant" were not sufficiently precise or foreseeabte . In this respect the Commission recalls the following passage from the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Sunday Times Case concerning the meaning of the expression "prescribed by law" where it appears in the Convention . "In the Court's opinion, the following are two of the requirements that flow from the expression "prescribed by law" . Firstly, the law must be adequately accessible : the citizen must be able to have an indication that is adequate in the circumstances of the legal rules applicable to a given case . Secondly, a norm cannot be regarded as a "law" unless it is formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct : he must be able-if need be with appropriate advicÃ©-to fore-
see, to a degree that is reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail . Those consequences need not be foreseeable with absolute certainty : experience shows this to be unattainable . Again, whilst certainty is highly desirable, it may bring in its train excessive rigidity and the law must be able to keep pace with changing circumstances . Accordingly, many laws are inevitably couched in terms which to a greater or lesser extent, are vague and whose interpretation and application are questions of practice . " 11 . It is clear from the above that the requirements of accessibility and foreseeability are also applicable to the expression "lawful" in Article 5 of the Convention . In the present case the applicant has been found by the Court of Appeal to have obtained indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom by deception (i .e . by assuming the identity of another person) . The Commission finds that in such circumstances there can be no doubt that the applicant must have been able to foresee that, if discovered, he would be liable to detention with a view to deportation . 12 . The Commission therefore finds that the applicant's detention was justified under Article 5(1)(D as being the lawful arrest and detention of a person against whom action was being taken with a view to deportati6n .
Artic(e 5(4 ) 13 . The applicant has also complained that the proceedings before the Courts in the United Kingdom did not involve a decision as to the "lawfulness" of his detention, as required by Article 5(4) . Article 5(4) states as follows :
"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 . " 15 . The Commission notes that the applicant was detained firstly for two days (8-11 January . . .) and subsequently from 2 April - 8 June . . .) . He applied for habeas corpus on 2 June . . . and was then released on 8 June . . . pending the outcome of the proceedings . Following the applicant's release his application for habeas corpus became an application for judicial review of the decision to remove him as an illegal entrant . His action was dismissed by the Divisional Court on 26 October . . . The Commission is of the opinion that the purpose of Article 5(4) is to .16 provide a safeguard against arbitrary detention by enabling a person to challenge the legality of his detention . It follows from this that once a detainee has been released from detention Article 5(4) ceases to be applicable in this way .
Accordingly, apart from questions concerning the "speed" of the proceedings which are not at issue in the present case, this provision can no longer be invoked by a person who is not actually in detention . 17 . It follows therefore that the applicant's complaints under Article 5 must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded in accordance with Article 27(2) of the Convention .
RÃ©sumÃ© des faits pertinent s Le requÃ©rant, qui se dit pakistanais, dÃ©clare Ã©tre entrÃ© clandestinement mt Rovaume-Uni en 1971 . En 1974, une antnistie fut annoncÃ©e en faveur des irnrnigrÃ©s clandestins . Le requÃ©rant s'en prÃ©valut et obtint au dÃ©but de 1975 une autorisation de sÃ©jour illintitÃ©. Sur la foi de renseignements fournis par un informateur, dont l'identitÃ© ne fut jamais rÃ©vÃ©lÃ©e au requÃ©rant, les autoritÃ©s d'intrnigration acquirent par la suite la conviction que le requÃ©rant Ã©tait ett rÃ©alitÃ© un certain Y. . rÃ©guliÃ¨renient entrÃ© au Rovaume-Uni en 1971 muni d'une dutorisation de sÃ©jour pour dix jaurs comme touriste. C'est dwic en usurpant l'identitÃ© de X . que le requÃ©rmtt avait frauduleusement obtenu le bÃ©nÃ©fice de l'antnistie, celle-ci ne visant pas les persotines derneurÃ©es au Royaume-Uni aprÃ¨s l'Ã©chÃ©ance de leur autorisation de sÃ©jour (overstayers) .
Le requÃ©rant fut an@tÃ© en janvier 1978 comme immigrant clandestin, en application de l'article 2, paragraphe 16 (2) de la loi de 1971, qui prÃ©voit la dÃ©tention de personnes susceptibles d'Ã©tre expulsÃ©es, notamment pour immigation clandestiqe. Il fut remis en libertÃ© deux jours plus tard pour examen de son dossier. . Il fut arr@tÃ© Ã nouveau en avril 1978 en vue d'Ãªtre expulsÃ© et, deux nwis plus tard . prÃ©senta une demande d'habeas corpus . Le requÃ©rant fut remis en libertÃ© provisoire etsa demande convertie en requÃªte en rÃ©examen judiciaire (judicial review) . CeQe-ci fut rejetÃ©e en octobre 1978 et le requÃ©rant s'adressa Ã la Court of Appeal. Son recours fut rejetÃ© en fÃ©vrier 1980 . AprÃ¨s de vaines dÃ©marches auprÃ¨s du MinistÃ¨re de l'/ntÃ©rietlr, le requÃ©ram fut expulsÃ© en fÃ©vrier 1981 .
(TRADUGT/ON) EN DROIT (Extrait) Sur l'article 5, paragraphe 1 3 . Le requÃ©rant s'est plaint, (Ã cet Ã©gard), que les dispositions lÃ©gales rÃ©gissant son arrestation et sa dÃ©tention comme .immigrant clandestin . n'avaient pas un caractÃ¨re suffisamment certain ou prÃ©visible et ont donc emportÃ© violation de son droit Ã la â¢ sÃ»retÃ© â¢ . II fait savoir en outre que le droit Ã la sÃ»retÃ© suppose un contrÃ´le judiciaire appropriÃ© de l'arrestation et de la dÃ©tention . A titre subsidiaire, il soutient que sa dÃ©tention n'Ã©tait ni ordonnÃ©e â¢ selon les voies lÃ©gales â¢ ni . rÃ©guliÃ¨re . au sens de l'article 5, paragraphe 1 f) . 4 . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ il concerne la prÃ©sente affaire, l'article 5, paragraphe 1, est ainsi libellÃ© : .Toute personne a droit Ã la libertÃ© et Ã la sÃ»retÃ© . Nul ne peut Ãªtre privÃ© de sa libertÃ©, sauf dans les cas suivants et selon les voies lÃ©gales :
(f) S'il s'agit de l'arrestation ou de la dÃ©tention rÃ©guliÃ¨res d'une personne pour l'empÃªcher de pÃ©nÃ©trer irrÃ©guliÃ¨rement dans le territoire, ou contre laquelle une procÃ©dure d'expulsion ou d'extradition est en cours . . 5 . La Commission estime qu'il n'est pas nÃ©cessaire d'examiner sÃ©parÃ©ment les griefs formulÃ©s par le requÃ©rant Ã propos de la â¢ sGretÃ© . car ils se trouvent couverts pour l'essentiel par l'examen pratiquÃ© sur le terrain de l'article 5 . paragraphe 1(f) et paragraphe 4 . 6 . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 2, paragraphe 16 (2) de la loi de 1971, en attendant que soient donnÃ©es les instructions concernant son expulsion comme immigrant clandestin . L'expulsion du requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© le but dÃ©clarÃ© et incontestÃ© de sa dÃ©tention . II en dÃ©coule de la . rÃ©gularitÃ© . de la dÃ©tention dÃ©pend du point de savoir si le requÃ©rant Ã©tait bien un . immigrant clandestin . susceptible d'Ãªtre expulsÃ© aux termes de la loi de 1971 . II Ã©chet donc d'examiner si le requÃ©rant Ã©tait un â¢immigrant clandestinâ¢ selon la lÃ©gislation du Royaume-Uni . 7 . La Commission relÃ¨ve que les rÃ©cits de son entrÃ©e au Royaume-Uni varient . D'un cÃ´tÃ©, le requÃ©rant prÃ©tend Ãªtre entrÃ© clandestinement dans le pays en 1971 sous le nom de X . et avoir bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ© d'une amnistie en 1975 . De l'autre, les Services de l'immigration estiment que sa vÃ©ritable identitÃ© est celle de Y . qui, en se faisant passer pour X . auprÃ¨s des autoritÃ©s, a frauduleusement obtenu une amnistie Ã laquelle il n'avait pas droit .
8 . AprÃ¨s une analyse approfondie du dossier produit par les deux parties, la cour d'appel a conclu que le Ministre avait des motifs raisonnables de penser que le requÃ©rant Ã©tait un .immigrant clandestinâ¢ et, donc, passible d'expulsion . Elle a accordÃ© une importance particuliÃ¨re aux diffÃ©rences parmi les rÃ©cits que le requÃ©rant a faits aux autoritÃ©s de son voyage de Paris au Royaume-Uni en 1971 et Ã la prÃ©cision des dÃ©tails fournis par l'informateur . 9 . La Commission ne constate chez le requÃ©rant aucun Ã©lÃ©ment qui mettrait sÃ©rieusement en doute cette conclusion et estime en consÃ©quence qu'Ã cet Ã©gard la dÃ©tention est . rÃ©guliÃ¨re . au sens de l'article 5, paragraphe 1(f) . 10 . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©galement soutenu que sa dÃ©tention est 'vrÃ©guliÃ¨re parce que les dispositions lÃ©gales liÃ©es Ã la notion d' .immigrant clandestin . ne sont pas suffisamment prÃ©cises ou prÃ©visibles . A cet Ã©gard, la Commission rappelle le passage suivant extrait de l'arrÃ¨t rendu par la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme dans l'affaire du Sunday Times Ã propos du sens des mots â¢prÃ©vues par la loi ., telle qu'ils apparaissent dans le texte de la Convention . .49 . Aux yeux de la Cour, les deux conditions suivantes comptent parmi celles qui se dÃ©gagent des mots â¢prÃ©vues par la loi . . Il faut d'abord que la .loi . soit suffisamment accessible : le citoyen doit pouvoir disposer de renseignements suffisants, dans les circonstances de la cause, sur les normes juridiques applicables Ã un cas donnÃ© . En second lieu, on ne peut considÃ©rer comme une toi . qu'une norme Ã©noncÃ©e avec assez de prÃ©cision pour permettre au citoyen de rÃ©gler sa conduite ; en s'entourant au besoin de conseils Ã©clairÃ©s, il doit Ãªtre Ã mÃªme de prÃ©voir, Ã un degrÃ© raisonnable dans les circonstances de la cause, les consÃ©quences de nature Ã dÃ©river d'un acte dÃ©terminÃ© . Elles n'ont pas besoins d'Ã©tre prÃ©visibles avec une certitude absolue : l'expÃ©rience la rÃ©vÃ¨le hors d'atteinte . En outre la certitude, bien que hautement souhaitable, s'accompagne parfois d'une rigiditÃ© excessive ; or le droit doit savoir s'adapter aux changements de situation . Aussi beaucoup de lois se servent-elles, par la force des choses, de formules plus ou moins vagues dont l'interprÃ©tation et l'application dÃ©pendent de la pratique . .
I1 . Il ressort clairement de cet extrait que les conditions d'accessibilitÃ© et de prÃ©visibilitÃ© s'appliquent Ã©galement Ã l'expression â¢rÃ©guliÃ¨re . figurant Ã l'article S de la Convention . En l'espÃ¨ce, la Cour d'appel a constatÃ© que c'est frauduleusement (c'est-Ã -dire en prenant une autre identitÃ©) que le requÃ©rant a obtenu l'autorisation de sÃ©jour illimitÃ© au Royaume-Uni . La Commission estime que . dans ces conditions, il ne fait aucun doute que le requÃ©rant devait Ãªtre en mesure de prÃ©voir que, s'il Ã©tait dÃ©couvert, il risquait d'Ãªtre dÃ©tenu en vue d'expulsion . 12 . La Commission estime en consÃ©quence que la dÃ©tention du requÃ©rant se justifiait au regard de l'a rt icle S, paragraphe 1(f), puisqu'il s'agissait de
l'arrestation et de la dÃ©tention rÃ©guliÃ¨res d'une personne Ã l'encontre de qui des mesures d'expulsion Ã©taient en cours . Sur l'article 5, paragraphe 4 13 . Le requÃ©rant s'est plaint Ã©galementque la procÃ©dure n'a pas amenÃ© les juridictions du Royaume-Uni Ã statuer sur la â¢ lÃ©galitÃ© Â» de sa dÃ©tention, comme l'exige l'article 5, paragraphe 4 . 14 . L'article 5, paragraphe 4, est ainsi libellÃ© : -Toute personne privÃ©e de sa libertÃ© par arrestation ou dÃ©tention a 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, . 15 . La Commission relÃ¨ve que le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu d'abord deux jours (du 8 au 11 janvier . . .), puis du 2 avril au 8 juin . . . . Il a formulÃ© une demande d'habeas corpus le 2 juin . . . et a Ã©tÃ© remis en libertÃ© le 8 juin . . . en attendant l'issue de la procÃ©dure . AprÃ¨s remise en libertÃ© du requÃ©rant, la demande d'habeas corpus est devenue une demande de contrÃ´le judiciaire (judicial review) de la dÃ©cision d'expulser l'intÃ©ressÃ© comme immigrant clandestin . La demande a Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ© par la Divisional Court le 26 octobre . . . 16 . La Commission estime que l'article 5, paragraphe 4, vise Ã protÃ©ger l'individu contre la dÃ©tention arbitraire en lui permettant de contester la lÃ©galitÃ© de sa dÃ©tention . Il en dÃ©coule qu'une fois le dÃ©tenu remis en libertÃ©, l'article 5, paragraphe 4, cesse de s'appliquer de la sorte . En consÃ©quence, hormis pour les questions de cÃ©lÃ©ritÃ© de la procÃ©dure, qui ne sont pas en jeu en l'espÃ¨ce, cette disposition ne peut plus Ãªtre invoquÃ©e par une personne qui n'est plus effectivement dÃ©tenue . 17 . II s'ensuit donc que les griefs tirÃ©s par le requÃ©rant de l'article 5 doivent Ãªtre rejetÃ©s comme manifestement mal fondÃ©s au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention .
- 242 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 05/05/1982Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 2
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 2
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 L'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 27