Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19750929-526571
Timestamp: 2016-12-08 00:29:05+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 : 5265/71Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1975-09-29;5265.71 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) ACCES A UN TRIBUNAL, (Art. 6-1) DELAI RAISONNABLE, (Art. 6-1) DROITS ET OBLIGATIONS DE CARACTERE CIVIL, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLE, (Art. 6-1) PROCES PUBLIC, (Art. 8-1) RESPECT DE LA CORRESPONDANCE, (Art. 8-2) DEFENSE DE L'ORDRE, (Art. 8-2) INGERENCE, (Art. 8-2) NECESSAIRE DANS UNE SOCIETE DEMOCRATIQUE, (Art. 8-2) PREVENTION DES INFRACTIONS PENALESParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : ROYAUME-UNITexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 5265/71 X . v/UNITED KINGDOM X . c/ROYAUME-UN I DECISION of 29 September 1975 on the admissibility of the application D ÃCISION du 29 septembre 1975 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 3 of the Convention : Inhuman treatment. "Category A" prisoner (highly dangerous persons) -placed in solitary confinement, partly at his own request . Examinations of his mental state-No appearance of a violation . Article 25, paragraph 1 in fine, of the Convention : Alleged interference with the effective exercice of the right of individual petition -No further action .
Article 3 de la Convention : Traitement inhumain . CondamnÃ© dÃ©tenu se%n le rÃ©gime de rr catÃ©gorie A Â» (individus dangereux) ; placÃ© en cellule d'isolement en partie Ã sa demande . Examen de son Ã©tat menta/ . Aucune apparence de violation . Article 25, paragraphe 1 in fine, de la Convention : AllÃ©gations d'entraves Ã l'exercice efficace du droit de requÃªte individuef. Non-lieu .
Summary of the facts I franÃ§ais : voir p . 7 ) The applicant is a citizen of the United Kingdom, born in 1942. In 1969, he was convicted of robbery with violence, robbery with aggravation, conspiracy to rob and being in possession of a firearm without a certificate . He was then put in P. Prison and classified as a "category A" prisoner, which means that he was kept in conditions of maximum security . "Category A" prisoners are those whose escape would be highly dangerous . He spent a great deal of his time in solidarity confinement (884 days according to the applicant, 339 according to the Governmentl, partly at his own request to evade attempts by the K . brother gangsters to attack him . The applicant attempted suicide twice . He alleges that his mental health has been seriously affected by his solitary confinement.
In November 1972, he was re-graded as "category B" (for less serious cases) . In uly 1974, he was transferred to W. prison . The applicant maintained that, while in P . Prison, he had been told that if he would withdraw his application to the Commission, he would be down-graded to "B" classification. Both parties were invited to submit written observations on the admissibility of the application .
THE LA W The applicant has complained of inhuman treatment during his detention in 1. prison, contrary to Art . 3 of the Convention . This ill-treatment allegedly arose because of the applicant's classification as a"Category A" prisoner, his detention near to the K . brother gangsters and the resulting solitary confinement requested by the applicant for the most part for his own protection . It is true that Art . 3 of the Convention prohibits inhuman treatment . However the Commission has carefully examined the applicant's complaints and does not find any appearance of a violation of this Article for the following reasons : The Commission notes that although the Government's observations on the question of classification are vague, the applicant was convicted of armed robbery . The circumstances of this charge were that two persons were badly attacked one evening and robbed of L1,360 by a gang of 5 people including the applicant . The police were called and later that night they tollowed a van which was being driven erratically . A police chase ensued during which 5 shots were fired at the pursuing police car . Although the applicant was not involved in the car chase he appears to have supplied the gun used .
The applicant also has several previous convictions albeit not as serious as in the present case . Nevertheless, even though few prisoners are classified as "Category A" prisoners the Commission is of the opinion that the decision of the prison authorities to classify the applicant as a "Category A" prisoner was not unfounded . Because of the applicant's classification as a "Category A" prisoner he was kept in conditions of maximum security . He was detained in P . prison, a suitable prison for security risk cases, alongside the K . brothers . It is not disputed that the K . brothers are dangerous people and were probably a threat to the applicant . However, it cannot be overlooked that there is evidence indicating that the applicant is a violent man : his conviction for armed robbery and the fact that he can, and has, held his own against attacks by the K . brothers . There is no evidence of who began the fights between the K . brothers and the applicant, but the Commission considers that he has probably contributed to his problems with these notorious gangsters . Finally, the applicant stated that he had to seek solitary confinement to stay out of danger and this affected his mental health . The Commission was particularly concerned originally as the applicant's situation appeared to have led him to attempt suicide twice, even though the second attempt was not very serious . On this basis on 18 December 1973 the Commission decided to communicate the case to the respondent Government for its observations on admissibility . Now, however, from the applicant's letter to the Commission of 5 May 1975, it is clear that the applicant's classification, detention near the K . brothers and solitary confinement were not the only causes of the alleged breakdown of his mental health . In the said letter the applicant describes no less than five of his previous suicide attempts, all of which occurred before the commencement of his present term of imprisonment . In 1962 he took an overdose of codene, in 1964 an overdose of aspirin, in 1965 he treatened to leap from the ledge of a high building, in 1968 he attempted to slash his wrists and finally he informed the Commission that he had attempted to gas himself . -6-
This contradicts the applicant's original claim that he was in pe rf ect mental health before 1969 when his present term of imprisonment began . The Commission finds that this admission by the applicant lends credence to the impressions of the consultant psychiatrist who stated that the applicant was in a state of anxiety, feeling alienated and suspicious of eve ry one around him . Fu rt hermore, this psychiatric opinion makes the applicant's desire to seek solita ry confinement understandable . It would appear therefore that the applicant's situation is pa rt ly caused by his own temperament and is not the entire responsibility of the Government . On balance therefore, and in the light of the facts that the applicant has been downgraded to "Catego ry B" and is not longer detained in P . or a prison where any of the K . brothers are imprisoned, the Commission does not find that a breach of Art . 3 has been substantiated by the applicant . . An examination by the Commission of these complaints as they have been submitted, including an examination made ex officio, does not therefore disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and in pa rt icular in the above A rt icle . It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art . 27 (2) of the Convention . II . Insofar as the applicant complains of pressure being put upon him to withdraw his application to the Commission contra ry to Art . 25 11) in fine of the Convention, the Commission notes the respondent Government's statement that enquiries have been made about this but that nothing has emerged to suppo rt the applicant's allegations . The Commission fu rt her notes that the applicant has maintained his application ; he has been able to present his case to the Commission effectively and was reclassified as a "Category B" prisoner without having withdrawn his application . The Commission concludes therefore that it need take no fu rt her action in respect of the alleged interference with the applicant's effective exercise of the right of individual petition within the meaning of Art . 25 .
For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE an d DECIDES TO TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED INTERFERENCE WITH THE EFFECTIVE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF INDIVIDUAL PETITIO N RÃ©sumÃ© des faits Le requÃ©rant est un citoyen britannique nÃ© en 1942 . En 1969, il a Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© Ã¢ 14 ans de rÃ©clusion pour vol Ã main armÃ©e, association de maNaiteurs et port d'arme sans permis . Il fut ensuite placÃ© Ã l'Ã©tablissement pÃ©nitentiaire de P . et soumis au rÃ©gime de sÃ©curitÃ© maximum (prisonniers dits de Â« catÃ©gorie A Â»), rÃ©servÃ© aux dAtenus dangereux dont l'Ã©vasion est Ã craindre . Il a subi une dÃ©tention cellulaire isolÃ©e de longue durÃ©e (884 jours selon lui, 339 jours selon le Gouvernement mis en cause), en partie sur sa propre demande pour Ã©chapper aux attaques des frÃ©res K ., gangsters dÃ©tenus dans le mÃ©me Ã©tablissement . Le requÃ©rent a commis deux tentatives de suicide . ll prÃ©tend que sa santÃ© mentale e Ã©tÃ© sÃ©rieusement aNectÃ©e par sa dÃ©tention Ã l'isolement . En novembre 1972, il a Ã©tÃ© reclassÃ© en rr catÃ©gorie B Â»
IrÃ©se rvÃ©e aux cas moins dangereux) et, en juillet 1974, transfÃ©rÃ© Ã¢ l'Ã©tablissemen W. tpÃ©nieard Le requÃ©rant a prÃ©tendu que, pendant qu'il Ã©tait Ã P., on lui aurait dÃ©clarÃ© qu'i1 serait reclassÃ© en rr catÃ©gorie B Â» s'il retirait sa requÃªte Ã la Commission .
La recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte a Ã©tÃ© examinÃ©e en procÃ©dure contradictoire Ã©crite .
(TRADUCTION ) EN DROI T Le requÃ©rant se plaint d'avoir subi pendant sa dÃ©tention en prison un 1. traitement inhumain contraire Ã l'article 3 de la Convention . Ce traitement rÃ©sultait, selon lui, de son classement comme prisonnier de Â« catÃ©gorie A n, de la proximitÃ© des frÃ©res K ., gangsters, et de la dÃ©tention Ã l'isolement que, pour une large part, il dut solliciter lui-mÃªme pour garantir sa protection . Il est vrai que l'article 3 de la Convention prohibe les traitements inhumains . Toutefois, aprAs avoir examinÃ© en dÃ©tail les griefs du requÃ©rant, la Commission n'a pu discerner l'apparence d'une violation de cette disposition,'et cela pour les motifs suivants : Bien que les explications du Gouvernement quant Ã la question du classement du requÃ©rant manquent de prÃ©cision, la Commission relÃ¨ve tout d'abord que ce dernier a Ã©tÃ© convaincu de vol Ã main armÃ©e dans les circonstances ci-aprÃ¨s : Deux personnes furent sauvagement attaquÃ©es un soir et dÃ©pouillÃ©es d'une somme de 1 360 livres sterling par une bande de cinq malfaiteurs, dont le requÃ©rant . La police fut alertÃ©e et, plus tard dans la soirÃ©e, prit en chasse une fourgonnette qui Ã©tait conduite sans but prÃ©cis . Au cours de la chasse, cinq coups de feu furent tirÃ©s sur la voiture de police poursuivante . Bien que le requÃ©rant ne fLt pas lui-mi'me impliquÃ© dans ce dernier Ã©pisode, il apparut que c'est lui qui avait fourni l'amte utilisÃ©e . Le requÃ©rant avait encouru antÃ©rieurement plusieurs condamnations, quoique moins sÃ©vÃ¨res . NÃ©anmoins, alors mÃªme que peu de dÃ©tenus sont classÃ©s en Â« catÃ©gorie A n, la Commission est d'avis que la dÃ©cision des autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires de classer le requÃ©rant comme tel n'Ã©tait pas dÃ©pourvue de fondement . Vu son classement en Â« catÃ©gorie A n, il fut dÃ©tenu dans les conditions de sÃ©curitÃ© maximum Ã la prison de P, un Ã©tablissement appropriÃ© aux cas comportant un haut risque, tout prÃ©s des frÃ©res K . . Il n'est pas contestÃ© que les frÃ¨res K . sont des Ã©lÃ©ments dangereux et ont pu constituer une menace pour le requÃ©rant . D'un autre cbtÃ©, il ne faut pas perdre de vue que le requÃ©rant est manifestement un individu violent : Ã preuve sa condamnation pour agression Ã main armÃ©e et la maniÃ©re dont il pu et a en fait rÃ©pondu aux attaques des frÃ©res K . . On ne sait pas qui, du requÃ©rant ou des frÃ¨res K ., a dÃ©clanchÃ© les bagarres mais la Commission est portÃ©e Ã croire que le requÃ©rant a sans doute contribuÃ© Ã son inimitiÃ© avec ces gangsters notoires . Enfin, le requÃ©rant dÃ©cWre qu'il a d0 solliciter lui-mÃªme sa mise Ã l'isolement pour Ã©chapper au danger et que sa santÃ© mentale s'en est ressentie . A l'origine, la Commission a Ã©tÃ© prÃ©occupÃ©e par le fait que la situation du requÃ©rant semblait l'avoir conduit Ã attenter Ã ses jours, encore que sa seconde tentative de suicide ne soit pas apparue trÃ¨s sÃ©rieuse . C'est pourquoi la Commission,
le 18 dÃ©cembre 1973, a dÃ©cidÃ© de porter la requÃ©te Ã la connaissance du Gouverne -.mentiscau,veqdrnifascoteprÃ©isbvaton Par contre, il apparait maintenant, Ã la lecture de la lettre du requÃ©rant Ã la Commission en date du 5 mai 1975, que son classement en Â« catÃ©gorie A Â», la proximitÃ© des frÃ©res K . et son rÃ©gime d'isolement n'Ã©taient pas les seuls motifs de la dÃ©tÃ©rioration allÃ©guÃ©e de son Ã©tat mental . Dans la lettre en question, le requÃ©rant ne dÃ©crit pas moins de cinq tentatives de suicide, toutes antÃ©rieures Ã la peine qu'il purge prÃ©sentement . En 1962, il ingurgita une dose excessive de codÃ©ine, en 1964 une dose excessive d'aspirine, en 1965 il menaÃ§a de sauter de la corniche d'un bÃ timent Ã©levÃ©, en 1968 il tenta de se taillader les poignets et, finalement, il a dÃ©clarÃ© Ã© la Commission qu'il avait tentÃ© de s'asphyxier au gaz . Tout cela contredit l'affirmation du requÃ©rant selon laquelle il Ã©tait en parfaite santÃ© mentale avant 1969 , c'est-A-dire avant de purger sa peine . La Commission est d'avis que ces faits reconnus par le requÃ©rant viennent corroborer l'impression du psychiatre qui l'a examinÃ© et selon qui le requÃ©rant vivait dans un Ã©tat d'anxiÃ©tÃ©, se sentait aliÃ©nÃ© et soupÃ§onnait tout son entourage . L'opinion de ce psychiatre rend comprÃ©hensible le dÃ©sir marquÃ© par le requÃ©rant d'Ãªtre dÃ©tenu Ã l'isolement . Il en rÃ©sulte que la situation du requÃ©rant Ã©tait due en partie Ã son propre tempÃ©rament et ne peut ptre mise entiÃ©rement au compte du Gouvernement . AprÃ©s avoir pesÃ© ces divers Ã©lÃ©ments et eu Ã©gard au fait que le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©classÃ© en Â« catÃ©gorie B n et qu'il n'est plus dÃ©tenu Ã la prison de P . ni dans quelque Ã©tablissement oÃ¹ se trouve l'un des frÃ©res K ., la Commission est d'avis que le requÃ©rant n'a pas rendu vraisemblable une violation de l'article 3 . Ni l'examen de ce grief tel qu'il a Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©, ni un examen d'office ne permettent donc de discerner l'apparence d'une violation des droits et libertÃ©s garantis par la Convention, notamment par sa disposition prAcitÃ©e . Il s'ensuit que la rÃ©quÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, 2, de la Convention .
Pour ce qui est de la plainte du requÃ©rant selon laquelle, en violation de l'article 25, Il . 4 1 in fine, de la Convention, il aurait subi des pressions pour l'amener Ã retirer sa requÃªte, la Commission prend acte de ce que le Gouvernement a dÃ©Ã§larÃ© avoir fait procÃ©der Ã une enquÃ¨te, dont le rÃ©sultat n'aen rien confirmÃ© les'allÃ©gations du requÃ©rant . Elle relÃ©ve d'autrÃ©part que ce dernier a maintenu sa .requPte, qu'il a Ã©tÃ© en mesure de soutenir effÃ©ctivement sa cause devantla Commission et qu'il a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©classÃ© en tr catÃ©gorie B nsans avoir retirÃ© sa requSte . Elle en conclut qu'il n'y a pas lieu de donner suite aux allÃ©gations du requÃ©rant portant sur de prÃ©tendues entraves Ã l'exercice efficace du droit de requÃªte individuel, tel qu'il est prÃ©vu Ã l'article 25 . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n - DÃCLARELA REQUÃTEIRRECEVABL E - DÃCIDE DE NE PAS DONNER SUITE AUX ALLÃGATIONS DU REQUÃRANT CONCERNANT DE PRÃTENDUES ENTRAVES P . L'EXERCICE EFFICACE DU DROIT DE REQUÃTE INDIVIDUEL .
_9-Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (plénière)Date de la décision : 29/09/1975Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: in fine
in fine
in fine
 l'article 3
 l'article 3
 l'article 3
 l'article 27
 l'article 25
in fine
 l'article 25