Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19830511-1023082
Timestamp: 2017-04-24 01:49:23+00:00

Document:
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Violation de l'Art. 6-1 ; Violation de l'Art. 8 ; Violation de l'Art. 13 ; Satisfaction équitable réservéeNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 10230/82Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1983-05-11;10230.82 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) EGALITE DES ARMES, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLE, (Art. 6-1) PROCES ORAL, (Art. 6-3-c) ASSISTANCE D'UN DEFENSEUR DE SON CHOIX, (Art. 6-3-c) ASSISTANCE GRATUITE D'UN AVOCAT D'OFFICEParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : SUEDETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 10230/8 2 X . v/SWEDE N
X . c/SUÃD E DECISION of 11 May 1983 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 11 mai 1983 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte
Article 5, paragraph 4 of the Convention : This provision canrtot be invoked by a person after release for the purpose of obtainiteg a declaration that a previous detention was unlawful. Artlcle 26 of the Convention : Failing doniestic remedies . the six months period runs from the end of the situation complained of.
Adlcle 5, paragraphe 4 ; de le Convention : Cette disposition ne peut pas Ãªtre invoquÃ©e par une personne en libertÃ© pour faire constater la prÃ©tendue illÃ©galitÃ© d'une dÃ©tention antÃ©rieure . Artlcle 26 de la Convention : En l'absence d'une voie de recours interne, le dÃ©lai de six mois court Ã partir de la fin de la situation dont il est fait grief.
(franÃ§ais : voir p. 306)
The facts of the case may be summarised as follows : i The applicÃ¢nt is a Swedish citizen bom in 1946 and residÃ©nt in Malmt On 9 May 1968 the applicant was involunta ri ly admitt ed and detained t'or psychiatric treatment (closed regime) in a hospital . He was re leÃ¢sed on 29 February 1972 . He was re-admi tted on 23 February 1978 and ieleased on 28 February 1979 . On 7 October 1982 the applicant appealed against the above deÃ§isions to detain him in hospital . - 303 -
The appeal was rejected, after an examination of its merits, by the Discharge Council (utskrivningsnÃ¯mnden) in Malmti on 29 October 1982 . A further appeal to the Psychiatric Council (psykiatriska nÃ¯mnden) was rejected on 23 November 1982 . The applicant states that the reason for his notappealing against the detention decisions until October 1982 was that he was not informed until that time of his rights, and after he had obtained legal assistance . He submits that the fact that the authorities have examined the decisions to detain him after such a long time implies that the final decision is that on 23 November 1982 .
COMPLAQM The applicant alleges a violation of Article 5 (4) of the Convention as neither the Discharge Council nor the Psychiatric Council could be regarded as a "court" within the meaning of that Article .
THE LAW The applicant complains that he has not been entitled to have the lawfulness of his detention determined by a court . He invokes Article 5 (4) of the Convention which reads as follows :"Everyone who is deprived of his liberty byarrest or detention shall b e 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 Committee observes that Article 5 guarantees everyone'i right to liberty . Article 5 (4) is designed to ensure that a person who is deprived of his liberty should have a remedy in order that a speedy release can be obtained if his detention is judged unlawful . The right guaranteed in Article 5 (4) is hence only applicable to persons deprived of their liberty . However Article 5 (4) has no application for the purpose of obtaining, after release, a declaration that a previous detention or arrest was unlawful . The Commission refers on this point to paragraph 63 of its Report i n Application No . 6871/75, Caprino v . the United Kingdom (Decisions and Reports No . 22, p . 5, para . 63) where it stated that "Article5 (4) envisages only remedies available during the time of the detention, and therefore the possibility under English law of claiming damages for false imprisonment after the release does not enter into account for the purpose of this provision" . The Commission recalls that the applicant was detained for psychiatric treatment during two periods, one terminating on 29 February 1972 and the other on 28 February 1979 . The applicant did not, however, take any steps to have the lawfulness of his detention determined until October 1982 .
In these circumstances, the Commission must examine whether the applicant has complied with the six months' rule provided for in Article 26 of the Convention . In the opinion of the Commission it follows from what has been stated above, that a person who alleges a breach of Article 5 (4) must, in the absence of a pa rticular constitutional remedy or other similar remedy which could re dress an alleged breach of Article 5 (4), submit such a complaint to the Commission within six months from the date of his release . It is true that under Swedish law it is possible to have, after release, the lawfulness of a person's detention in a hospital determined by a Discharge Council, and upon a fu rther appeal by a Psychiatric Council, and that the present applicant in 1982 made use of this possibility . However, these organs only decided on the question of lawfulness of his earlier detentions but not on any alleged violation of Article 5 (4) . Accordingly, and since the applicant was already released at that time, the termination of these proceedings cannot be taken as the starting point for counting the six months' pe riod laid down in Article 26 . It follows that the six months' peri od laid down in Article 26 runs from the dates of his release, i .e . 29 February 1972 for the first detention and 28 February 1979 for the second . The application was introduced more than six months later, on 29 November 1982, and the fact that the applicant was not previously aware of his rights cannot absolve him from complying with the six months rule . It follows that the application has been introduced out of time and must be rejected under Article 27 (3) of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
(TRADUCTION ) EN FAIT Les faits .de la cause peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le requÃ©rant est un ressortissant suÃ©dois, nÃ© en 1946 et habitant Malmt i Le 9 mai 1968, le requÃ©rant fut internÃ© de force dans un hÃ´pital pour y recevoir un traitement psychiat rique en rÃ©gime fermÃ© . Il fut libÃ©rÃ© le 29 fÃ©vrier 1972, puis rÃ©internÃ© le 23 fÃ©vrier 1978 et Ã nouveau libÃ©rÃ© le 28 fÃ©v rier 1979 . Le .7 octobre 1982, le requÃ©rant forma recours contre les dÃ©cisions susdites ordonnant son internement psychiat ri que . Le recours fut rejetÃ© le 29 octobre 1982 aprÃ¨s un examen au fond par le conseil d'Ã©largissement (utsk rivningsnÃ¯mnden) de Malm6. Un second recours, ad ressÃ© au conseil psychiatrique ( psykiatriska nÃ mnden), fut lui aussi rejetÃ© le 23 novemb re 1982 . Le requÃ©rant affirme que, s'il n'a pas formÃ© recours contre les dÃ©cisions d'internement avant octobre 1982, c'est qu'il n'avait pas jusqu'alors Ã©tÃ© informÃ© de ses droits ni obtenu l'aide d'un avocat . Selon lui, le fait que les autoritÃ©s ont examinÃ© les dÃ©cisions de l'intertier si longtemps aprÃ¨s impGque que la dÃ©cision p rise en dernier resso rt est celle du 23 novembre 1982 .
Le reqÃ»Ã©rant allÃ¨gue une violation de l'ar ticle 5, paragraphe 4, de l a Convention du fait que ni le conseil d'Ã©largissement ni le conseil psychiatrique ne peuvent Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©s comme un .tri bunat . au sens de cet article .
EN DROIT Le requÃ©rant se plaint de n'avoir pas Ã©tÃ© autorisÃ© Ã faire examiner par un tribunal la rÃ©gularitÃ© de sa dÃ©tention . Il invoque Ã cet Ã©gard l'article 5, paragraphe 4, de la Convention, 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 . â¢ La Commission observe que l'article 5 garantit Ã toute personne le droit Ã la libertÃ© . L'article 5, paragraphe 4, vise Ã s'assurer que la personne privÃ©e de sa libertÃ© dispose d'une voie de recours pour obtenir un Ã©largissement rapide si la dÃ©tention est jugÃ©e illÃ©gale . Le droit garanti Ã l'article 5, paragraphe 4, n'est donc applicable qu'aux personnes privÃ©es de leur libertÃ© . Cepen-
dant, cette disposition ne s'applique pas lorsqu'il s'agit d'obtenir, aprÃ¨s une libÃ©ration, une dÃ©claration d'illÃ©galitÃ© d'une dÃ©tention ou d'une arrestation antÃ©rieure . La Commission renvoie sur ce point au paragraphe 63 de son rapport pour la requÃªte nÂ° 6871/75, Caprino c/Royaume-Uni (D .R . 22, p . 5, par . 63), oÃ¹ elle a dÃ©clarÃ© que .l'article 5, paragraphe 4, n'envisage que les voies de recours ouvertes pendant la durÃ©e de la dÃ©tention . En consÃ©quence, la possibilitÃ©, ouverte en droit anglais, de rÃ©clamer aprÃ¨s libÃ©ration des dommages et intÃ©rÃ©ts du chef de dÃ©tention irrÃ©guliÃ¨re n'entre pas en ligne de compte aux fins de cette disposition . La Commission rappelle que le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© dÃ©tenu pour un traitement psychiatrique pendant deux pÃ©riodes, la premiÃ¨re se terminant le 29 fÃ©vrier 1972 et la seconde le 28 fÃ©vrier 1979 . Le requÃ©rant n'a cependant pris aucune mesure pour faire examiner la rÃ©gularitÃ© de ces dÃ©tentions avant octobre 1982 . Dans ces conditions, la Commission doit examiner si le requÃ©rant a observÃ© la tÃ¨gle des six mois posÃ©e Ã l'article 26 de la Convention . Selon la Commission, il dÃ©coule de ce qui prÃ©cÃ¨de que quiconque allÃ¨gue une violation de l'article 5, paragraphe 4, doit, en l'absence d'une voie de recours constitutionnelle particuliÃ¨re ou de toute voie de recours analogue pouvant porter remÃ¨de Ã une violation allÃ©guÃ©e de l'article 5, paragraphe 4, prÃ©senter ce grief Ã la Commission dans les six mois suivant la libÃ©ration . Il est exact que le droit suÃ©dois permet, aprÃ¨s l'Ã©largissement, de faire examiner la rÃ©gularitÃ© d'un internement psychiatrique, d'abord par un conseil d'Ã©largissement puis, en appel, par un conseil psychiatrique, et que le requÃ©rant a fait usage de cette possibilitÃ© en 1982 . Cependant, ces organes n'ont dÃ©cidÃ© que de la rÃ©gularitÃ© des dÃ©tentions antÃ©rieures sans statuer sur une violation allÃ©guÃ©e de l'article 5, paragraphe 4 . En consÃ©quence, le requÃ©rant ayant dÃ©jÃ Ã©tÃ© libÃ©rÃ© Ã cette Ã©poque, la fin de cette procÃ©dure ne saurait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme le point de dÃ©part du dÃ©lai de six mois visÃ© Ã l'article 26 . Il s'ensuit que le dÃ©lai de six mois prÃ©vu Ã l'article 26 commence Ã courir Ã partir des dates de libÃ©ration de l'intÃ©ressÃ©, soit le 29 fÃ©vrier 1972 pour la premiÃ¨re dÃ©tention et le 28 fÃ©vrier 1979 pour la seconde . Or, la requÃªte a Ã©tÃ© introduite le 29 novembre 1982, soit plus de six mois aprÃ¨s, et le fait que le requÃ©rant n'Ã©tait pas jusqu'alors au courant de ses droits ne saurait le dispenser de respecter la rÃ¨gle des six mois . Il s'ensuit que la requÃªte est frappÃ©e de tardivetÃ© et doit Ãªtre rejetÃ©e conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 27, paragraphe 3, de la Convention . Par ces motifs, la Commission
DÃCLARE LA REQUETEIRRECEVABLE . - 307 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 11/05/1983Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 5
 l'article 5
 L'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 26
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 5
 l'article 26
 l'article 26
 l'article 27