Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19840314-995982-1035783
Timestamp: 2017-07-22 04:55:43+00:00

Document:
19 RESSORTISSANTS CHILIENS ET ASSOCIATION S. contre la SUEDE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche 19 RESSORTISSANTS CHILIENS ET ASSOCIATION S. contre la SUEDE
Type d'affaire : DécisionType de recours : Violation de l'Art. 5-4 ; Non-violation de l'art. 5-1 ; Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant ; Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationaleNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9959/82;10357/83Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1984-03-14;9959.82 Analyses : (Art. 5-1) LIBERTE PHYSIQUE, (Art. 5-1-e) ALIENE, (Art. 5-4) INTRODUIRE UN RECOURSParties : Demandeurs : 19 RESSORTISSANTS CHILIENS ET ASSOCIATION S.Défendeurs : la SUEDETexte : APPLICATIONS/REQUÃTES NÂ° 9959182 et 10357/83 Qoined/jointes ) 19 Chilean nationals and the S . Association v/SWEDE N 19 ressortissants chiliens et Association S . c/SUED E DECISION of 14 March 1984 on the admissibility of the applications DÃCISION du 14 mars 1984 sur la recevabilitÃ© des requÃªte s
Artlde 25 of tGe Conventlon : An association, with a social aim, may not itself claim to be a victim of a decision which only affects those persons whose interests it decides to defend . Article 26 of the Convention : When a person declares his adherance to an application already lodged with the Commission by someone else, his application is deemed to have been introduced on the date of that declaration to the Commission .
,4rYlcle 2S de la Conventfon : Une association Ã but social ne peut se prÃ©tendre victime d'une dÃ©cision qui frappe des personnes dont elle entend prendre la dÃ©fense . Arficle 26 de la Conventlon : lorsqu'une personne dÃ©clare se joindre Ã une requÃªte dÃ©jÃ introduite devant la Commission par un tiers, la requÃªte est rÃ©putÃ©e introduite, quant Ã ceae personne, au moment oÃ¹ celle-ci fait cene dÃ©claration Ã la Commission .
(franÃ§iais : voir p . 90)
By decisions of 28 January and 11 March 1982 the Swedish atahorities decided to expel 24 Chilean citizens, including the 19 applicants . 77tese people were immediately arrested and detained until their expulsion during the night of 18 and 19 March 1982 . 7he complaints which were made about this expulsion are as follows : a) 7he absence of individuai consideration of each person's case before ordering arrest constituted a beach of Article 5 para. 1(n :
b) Cenain of the persons were expelled despite a risk of suicide (Anicle 3) ; c) During transportation and unbeknown to those concerned, sedatives had been dissolved in drinks offered to certain of them who had announced their intention to protest (Article 3) . Due to coverage of the e-rpulsion by the Swedish mass media, the Chancellor oflustice initiated an inquiry, at the ourcome of which he concluded that the responsible authorities had dorie nothing-wrong . 7he S. Association, at first represented by its Chairman, and then by Mr . Pete Nobel, barrister in Uppsala, introduced an application on I July 1982 . One of the Chilean applicants (No 5), represented by Mrs Eva Eriksson, barrister in Stockhobn, introduced an application on 27 November 1982 . 7i'e other Chilean applicants natified the Commission on 3 January 1983 of their adherance to the first application and appointed the S. Association to act on their behalf.
THE LA W The applicants complain of a violation of Article 3 and Art . 5 para . 1(f) of the Convention with regard to the measures taken by the Swedish authorities in relation to the expulsion of 24 Chileans on 19 March 1982 . - The Commission has first examined whether the associationcan claim to-be a "victim" of a violation within the meaning of Article 25 of the Convention . In this respect it is noted that the association is composed of individuals, mainly social workers, for the purpose of promoting and developing social welfare services and policy in Sweden . Neither the individual members nor the association itself were in any way affected by the expulsion of the Chileans . Moreover, the Convention makes no provision for an "actio popularis" . Accordingly, the association cannot claim to be a victim of a violation of Art . 3 or Article 5 para . 1(f) of the Convention . It folloivs that with respect to the association, the application is incompatible ratione personae with the provisions of the Convention, and must therefore be rÃ©jected under Article 27 para . 2 . As regards the other applicants, the Commission notes that applicant no . 5 introduced her complaints on 27 November 1982 (cf . application no . 10357/83) . The remaining applicants submitted on 3 January 1983 a declaration that they adhered to the application pending before the Commission and authorised the Secretary of the association to act on their behalf . It is clear from the files that the association did not act on the express authority of the individual applicants when it lodged the application . Nor did the association, when it lodged the application on I July 1982, intend to act on behalf of any of the Chileans .
The fact that the individual applicants have subsequently submitted a power of attorney for the association and stated that they adhere to the application pending
before the Commission cannot have the retroactive effect of giving the association authority to act on their behalf when it lodged the application with the Commission . It is submitted that when the association lodged the application two powers of attorney had been made available to it by two lawyers who had represented the individual applicants before the Swedish authorities . The applicants have explained that the association decided not to make use of these powers of attomey since little was known about the situation of the Chileans at the time and that it was felt that the use of those powers of attomey could put the Chileans at risk in their home country if it became known . The Commission observes that one of the two lawyers submitted a separate application on behalf of applicant no . 5, whom she was representing under a power of attotney dated 19 March 1982 . Upon request from the Corrunission's Secretariat, this lawyer explained, inter alia, that she had been contacted by the association for the purpose of submitting an application to the Commisison, but that she had replied that she might do that later on and that she did not wish to act together with any opinion group . Moreover, when the association submitted the application in July 1982 it did not allege that it acted under the authority of the individual applicants, but stated that it was aware of the fact that it was doubtful whether it could be regarded as "victim" . Having regard to the above observations, and the submission made by the applicants, the Commission is unable to accept that the association acted under the tacit authority of any of the individual applicants when the application was lodged . The explanations which have been given cannot in the Commission's opinion justify a departure from the rule that only alleged victims can bring an application . In view of the above the individual applicants cannot be regarded as havin g introduced an application with the Conuoission until 3 January 1983, except for applicant no . 5, who introduced her application on 27 November 1982 . The individual applicants were expelled on 19 March 1982 . In the absence of any remedy for them, this date must be taken as the date from which the six months' period laid down in Art . 26 of the Convention stans to run . The Commission points out that the examination and decision by the Chancellor of Justice cannot be taken into account in the application of that Article . It follows that with respect to these applicanLt, the application has been lodged out of time and must be rejected under Art . 27 (3) .
For these reasons, the Commission , DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
RbvmÃ© des faits Les 28 janvier et /1 mars 1982 lÃ©s autoritÃ©s suÃ©doises dÃ©cidÃ¨rent l'expulsion au Chili de 24 ressorrissants chiliens, dont les 19 requÃ©rants. Ceux-ci furent aussitÃ´t placÃ©s en dÃ©tention et l'expulsion eut lieu dans la nuit du 18au 19 nwrs1982. Les griefsfomwlÃ©s Ã propos de cette e.cpuLrion sont les suivants : a) L'absence d'un esamen individuel du cas de chaque intÃ©ressÃ© avant sa mise en dÃ©tention constituerait une violation de l'article 5 par . 1(0 ; b) Certains des intÃ©ressÃ©s auraient Ã©tÃ© e-rpulsÃ©s au mÃ©pris d'un risque de suicide (article 3) ; c) Des sÃ©datifs auraient Ã©tÃ© dissous Ã l'insu des intÃ©ressÃ©s dans des boissons qui furent offertes durant le voyage Ã certains d'Ã©ntre eux qui avaient annoncÃ© leur intention de manifester leur protestation (article 3) s'Ã©tant fait l'Ã©cho de cette exrpu/sion, le Chancellier de la .LapresuÃ©doi justice (justitiekanrlern) a sponranÃ©ment procÃ©dÃ© Ã une enquÃªte, Ã la suite de laquelle il conclut que rien ne pouvait Ãªtre reprochÃ© aux autoritÃ©s responsables . L'Associatfon S. , d'abord reprÃ©sentÃ©e par son prÃ©sident pris par Me Peter Nobel, avocat Ã Uppsala, a introduit sa requÃªte le 1â¢' juillet 1982 . L'un des requÃ©rants chiliens (M 5), reprÃ©sentÃ© par Me Eva Eriksson, avocate Ã Stockhobn, a introduit sa requÃªte le 27 novembre 1982. Les autres requÃ©rants chiliens ont fait savoir le 3 janvier 1983 qu'ils se joignaient Ã la requ@te et ont mandatÃ© l'Association S . Ã cet effet
) .(lRADUC7ON
EN DROI T Les requÃ©rants se plaignent de violations de l'article 3 et de l'article 5 par . 1 f) de la Convention Ã propos des mesures prises par les autoritÃ©s suÃ©doises pour l'expulsion de 24 Chiliens le 19 mars 1982 . Ia Comtnission a d'abord examinÃ© si l'association pouvait se prÃ©tendre .victime . d'une violation, au sens de l'article 25 de la Convention .
A cet Ã©gard, elle relÃ¨ve que l'association se compose d'individus, essentiellement de travailleurs sociaux, et quÃ© son but est de promouvoir et dÃ©velopper en SuÃ¨de la politique et les services de l'assistance sociale . Or, ni l'association ni se s -90-
membres n'ont Ã©tÃ© affectÃ©s par l'expulsion des Chiliens . Or, la Convention ne prÃ©voit pas . d'actio popularis â¢ . En consÃ©quence, l'association ne peut pas se prÃ©tend re victime d'une violation de l'article 3 ou de l'article 5 par . 1 f) de la Convention . Il s'ensuit qu'en ce qui conceme l'association, la requÃªte est incompatible ratione personae avec les dispositions de la Convention et doit dÃ¨s lors Ã¨tre rejetÃ©e confortnÃ©ment Ã l'article 27 par . 2 . S'agissant des autres requÃ©rants, la Commission relÃ¨ve que la requÃ©rante NÂ° 5 a introduit sa requÃ©te le 27 novembre 1982 (requÃªte NÂ° 10357/83) . Les autres requÃ©rants ont sounÃ¹s le 3 janvier 1983 une dÃ©cl ar ation disant qu'ils adhÃ©raient Ã la requÃ¨te en instance devant la Commission et auto ri sant le SecrÃ©taire de l'association Ã agir en leur nom . Il resso rt des documents produits que l'association n'a pas agi sur mandat exprÃ¨s des individus requÃ©rants lorsqu'elle a in troduit sa requÃªte . De mÃªme, en saisissant la Comntission le 1Â°' juillet 1982, l'association ne se p ro posait pas d'agir au nom de l'un des Chiliens . I-e fait que les individus requÃ©rants ont ultÃ©rieurement donnÃ© procuration Ã l'association et affirmÃ© qu'ils adhÃ©raient Ã la requÃªte en instance devant la Conunission ne peut pas avoir rÃ©troactivement pour effet de donner Ã l'association qualitÃ© pour agir au nom des individus au moment de l'in troduction de sa requÃªte auprÃ¨s de la Commission . Il a Ã©tÃ© fait valoir que lorsque l'association a introduit sa requÃªte, deux procurations lui avaient Ã©tÃ© remises par deux avocats qui avaient reprÃ©sentÃ© des individus requÃ©rants devant les autoritÃ©s suÃ©doises . Les requÃ©rants ont expliquÃ© que l'association avait dÃ©cidÃ© de ne pas fai re usage de ces procurations Ã l'Ã©poque puisqu'on ne savait pas grand-chose de la situation des Chiliens et qu'on avait le sentiment que les utiliser pouvait faire cou rir des risques aux Chiliens dans leur pays d'origine si l'existence de ces documents Ã©tait connue . La Conunission relÃ¨ve que l'un des deux avocats a prÃ©sentÃ© une requÃªte sÃ©parÃ©e au nom de la requÃ©rante NÂ° 5, qu'elle reprÃ©sentait conformÃ©ment Ã une procuration datÃ©e du 19 mars 1982 . Sur demande du SecrÃ©tariat de la Commission, cette avocate a expliquÃ© notamment que l'association avait p ri s contact avec elle en vue de prÃ©senter une requÃªte Ã la Commission mais qu'elle avait rÃ©pondu qu'elle le ferait peut-Ãªtre par la suite mais qu'elle ne souhaitait pas agir de conce rt avec un quelconque groupe d'opinion . En outre, lorsque l'association a introduit sa requÃªte en juillet 1982, elle n'a pas prÃ©tendu agir sur mandat des individus requÃ©rants, mais elle a affirmÃ© Ã¨tre consciente du fait qu'il Ã©tait douteux qu'elle puisse Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme . victime â¢ .
Cela Ã©tant et vu l'argumentation dÃ©veloppÃ©e par les requÃ©rants, la Commissio ; lorsqu'elle a dÃ©posÃ© sa requÃªte, sur pro-nesauritdmql'sociatng curation tacite de tel ou tel des individus . Selon la Commission, les explications quiont Ã©tÃ© foumies ne sauraient justifie r une entorse Ã la rÃ¨gle selon laquelle seules les personnes se prÃ©tendant victimes d'une violation peuvent prÃ©senter une requEte . . En consÃ©quence, les individus requÃ©rants ne sauraient Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©s conune ayant introduit une requÃªte auprÃ¨s de la Cominission avant le 3 janvier 1983, hormis la requÃ©rante NÂ° 5 qui a dÃ©posÃ© sa rcquÃ©te le 27 novembre 1982 .Or,lesindvuqÃ©ato6expuls19mar82 . Cornme ils n edispoant'ucres,tdaquimrielpontdÃ©aul
de six mois prÃ©vu Ã l'article 26 de la Convention . La Commission souligne que l'enquÃªte et la dÃ©cision ne sauraient Ãªtre pris en considÃ©ration aux fins de cette disposition . ' ' B s'ensuit que, pour ce qui concerne ces requÃ©rants, la requÃªte est tardive e t doit 2tre rejetÃ©e conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 27 par . 3 . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DÃCLARE LES REQUÃTES IRRECEVABLES .
-92-Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 14/03/1984Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 5
 l'article 3
 l'article 5
 l'article 25
 l'article 3
 l'article 5
 l'article 27
 l'article 26
 l'article 27