Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19810319-881979
Timestamp: 2017-07-27 07:06:38+00:00
Document Index: 307597351

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 20", '§ 59', "l'article 2", "l'article 127", "l'article 2", "l'article 7", "l'article 5", "l'article 23", "l'article 26", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 3", "l'article 27"]

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Frais et dépens - demande rejetée ; Préjudice moral - réparation pécuniaire ; Dommage matériel - demande rejetéeNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8819/79Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1981-03-19;8819.79 Analyses : (Art. 41) PREJUDICE MORALParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : ALLEMAGNETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 8819/7 9 X . v/the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY X . c/RÃPUBLIQUE FÃDÃRALE D'ALLEMAGN E DECISION of 19 March 1981 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 19 mars 1981 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 3 of the Conventlon : Child of 10 and a ha[f years being questioned at police quarters . Absence of any element warranting the conclusion that the child has beerr particularev affected . Arilcle 5, paragraph I of the Convention : A child who spends two hours in police quarters in order to be questioned without being locked up is not deprived of his libertv . Artlcle 26 of the Convention : Child kept during two hours at police quarters in Berlin in order to be questioned . A request based on the Act on Cotnpensation for Prosecution Matuers (StrEG) does not constitute mt effective remedy since the child. for reasons of his young age . could not be prosecuted . A request J'or a declaratoryjudgment based on Article 23 (1) of the Introductory Act to the Act on the Jttdiciary (EGGVG) constitutes mt effective remedy . Article 3 de la Convention : lnterrogatoire d'une ertfant de dix ans et demi dans un poste de police . Absence d'Ã©lÃ©ment perntettant de penser que l'enfant en aurait Ã©tÃ© particuliÃ¨rement affectÃ©e . Article 5, paragraphe I, de la Convention : Un enfant passant deux heures dans un poste de police pour y@tre interrogÃ© sans Ã¨tre er{fermÃ© n'est pas privÃ© de sa libertÃ©.
Article 26 de la Convention : Enfant gardÃ© durant deu .r heures dans un poste de police Ã Berlin pour y Ã¨tre interrogÃ© . N'est pas un recours efficace une demande fondÃ©e sur la loi sur l'indemnisation pour des mesures de poursuite pÃ©nale (StrEG), puisque l'enfant, vu son jeune Ã ge . ne pouvait Ãªtre poursuivi . Est un recours efficace une demande de jugement dÃ©claratoire fondÃ©e sur l'article 20 (1) de la loi d'introduction Ã la loi d'organisation judiciaire (EGGVG) .
((rancais : voir p. 162)
The applicant is a child of Turkish natiouality born in 1966 and lives with her parents in Berlin . She is represenred by the latter*. In Jwtuary 1977 the applicant mtd one of her friends were fouttd in the possession of fountain pens belonging to fellow pupils. They admitted to their teacher that they occasionally searched coats irt the hall stand. Since numerous thefts had occurred in the school, the headmaster informed the police . Thereupott two police officers took the applicant and two of her friends to the police quarters where they were questioned for approximately one hour. When they were not being questioned they were kept in an unlocked cell. The applicant . who had arrived at 12.15, left the police quarters at 2.10 p.rn . when she was taken Jrotne bv the police to her parents, where a search was canied out which was unsuccessful. Crintinal proceedings instituted against the applicant were discontinued because of the absence of crintinal responsibili ty , in view of her young age . While asserting that the acts of his police officers were perfecdv lawful. th e President of the Berlin police regretted in front of the parents the manner in which the children had been held at the police quarters . In November 1977 the public prosecutor discontinued proceedings for charges of deprivation of liberty laid down by a parents' association against the police officers . The applicant's parents then ftled an action for damages against the city of Berlin for immaterial damage . This action was distnissed by the Berlin Regional Court which considered, after enquiry, that immaterial damage could not be estabtished. the child not having suffered arry fornt ofpe rturbation . This decision was without appeal.
The parents then addressed thentselves to the Berlin Administrative Court with a view to obtaining a declarato ry judgntent stating that their child's detention at the police quarters had been unlawful. The Administrative Cottrt referred the ntatter to the Berlin Court of Appeal ( Kamtnergericht) which, in October 1979, declared the request inadmissible since the petitioner had no longer a legal iuterest in such a declarato ry statement . THE LAW ( Extract ) The applicant primarily complains that on . . . January 1977 she and two fellow pupils were taken front their school to police quarters where they were held for about two hours . The applicant was then ten years old . During part of the tinte at the police qua rters the children were questioned with regard to theft s
* Bel'ore the Conimission the applicant was represented by Mr S . Setsevits, a lawyer practising in Berlin .
having occurred in their school . While they were not intertogated they were made to wait in an unlocked cell for about an hour before they were taken to their parents' homes . The respondent Government have argued that domestic remedies were not exhausted because no request was made on behalf of the applicant for compensation under the Act on Compensation for Prosecution Measures (SteEG) . The Commission does not consider that the Act in question offered an effective remedy in regard to the applicant's complaints .
The policemen involved in the matter could not have ignored that the applicant was, in view of her age, criminally not responsible (strafunmÃ¼ndig) . The police action taken against her cannot therefore be considered as a prosecution measure in the sense of Section 2 (2) of the Act and indeed the respondent Government also argue that the measure in question did not constitute a provisional arrest in the sense of Section 127 (2) of the Code on Criminal Procedure (StPO) to which Section 2(2) No . 2 of the Act (StrEG) refers . Furthermore the applicant's counsel rightly pointed out that the Act on Compensation for Prosecution Measures would not have offered any redress with regard to the moral damage alleged by the applicant and her request for a finding that she has been unlawfully kept in police detention . In fact, according to Section 7(3) of the Act (StrEG) the applicant could at best have obtained compensation in the amount of 10 DM and the award of such compensation would not have included a finding that the applicant's treatment had been unlawful . The respondent Government have further argued that the Regional Court's decision of . . . November 1978 dismissing the applicant's civil action for damages (Amtshafiungsklage) should be considered to be the final domestic decision with regard to the complaint under Article 5(I) of the Convention, and that consequently the application was lodged out of time (Article 26 of the Convention) .
The Commission cannot accept the respondent Government's argument that the subsequent remedy lodged by the applicant, namely her request under Section 23 (I) of the Introductory Act to the Act on the Judiciary (EGGVG) addressed to the Administrative Court and later transferred to the Berlin Court of Appeal (Kammergericht) was brought too late and therefore was no effective remedy in the sense of Article 26 of the Convention as it offered no prospects of success . Although the Court of Appeal rejected the said request as being inadmissible it did so only because it considered that the applicant had no legal interest in pursuing the matter . It can not, however, be found that the applicant, who questioned the legality of the police action, had ever, from her point of view, inevitably to expect such a reasoning . In these circumstances it cannot be found that the proceedings brought before the Berlin Court of Appeal constituted an ineffective remedy . - 160 -
Finally, the respondent Government have argued that the applicant's interrogation at the police quarters did not amount to a deprivation of liberty . In order to determine whether someone has been "deprived of his liberty" within the meaning of Article 5, the starting point must be his concrete situation (case of Engel and others, ECHR, Vol . 22, p . 25 . Â§ 59) . In the present case the children were only questioned and then made to wait in an unlocked room before being brought home . The purpose of their being taken to the police quarters was to question them and not to arrest and detain them . The Commission considers it to be regrettable that the children may not have been able to understand the police action and may have felt that they were deprived of their liberty . Nevertheless, in view of an objective appreciation of the information now before the Commission, it considers that in the circumstances of the case the action in question did not constitute a deprivation of liberty in the sense of Article 5(1) of the Convention . It is true that the Commission has held in previous decisions that Article 5(1) also applies to deprivation of liberty of a very short length (DR 18, pp . 154, 156 ; D .R . 7, p . 123) . However, this presupposes that the police action in question can, according to the circumstances of the particular case, in fact be considered as a deprivation of liberty . The decisions cited concerned a case of a person who was taken by police force to a medical institution for a blood test which he had refused to undergo, and a case of two Japanese citizens who were . for the purpose of their expulsion, arrested and detained for about an hour in Sweden before being put on a chartered aircraft taking them to Japan . In these cases the object of the police action was clearly to deprive the persons concerned of their liberty while in the present case the police action was not aimed at depriving the children of their liberty but simply to obtain information from them about how they obtained possession of the objects found on them and about thefts which had occurred in the school previously .
The Commission has also examined this complaint under Article 3 of the Convention but, however regrettable and unsuitable the police action in question may have been, it does not in itself amount to inhuman or degrading treatment . Although minors are not criminally responsible before reaching a certain age (usually fourteen),, it is justified in the interest of a proper administration of justice and the protection of the rights of others to subject them to investigation measures, such as interrogations by the police, in cases where there is well-founded suspicion of their being involved in activities which would be punishable if they were criminally responsible . It is of course necessary that interrogations of children be carried out in a manner respecting their age and susceptibility . The present applicant has not alleged any irregularities with regard to the police interrogation . She only
complains that she was held for a hort time in an unlocked cell . However . there is nothing to show that this particularly affected the applicant . The Commission also takes into account that the applicant was in the company of two fellow pupils . An exantination by the Commission of this complaint as it has been examination made ex officio, does not therefore disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the submitted, including an
Convention and in particular in Articles 5 (1) and 3 .
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention .
RÃ©sumÃ© des faits pertinents La requÃ©rarne est mte ertfant de nationalitÃ© turque nÃ©e en 1966 et vivant aver ses parems Ã Berlin . Elle est reprÃ©sentÃ©e par ces derniers *. En janvier 1977. la requÃ©rante et l'une de ses camarades furen i trouvÃ©es ert possession de plutnes rÃ©servoirs appartenant Ã d'autres Ã©coliers et avouÃ¨rent Ã leur rnaitresse d'Ã©cole qu'elles foui//aient parfois les marueaux suspendus Ã l'erurÃ©e de la classe. Comme de nombreux vo/s avaient Ã©tÃ© comntis dans l'Ã©tablissernem, le directeur informa la police . Sur ce, deux agents emmenÃ¨rent la requÃ©rante et deux de ses camarades mt commissariat, oÃ¹ elles furent imerrogÃ©es durant environ une heure . Lorsqu'elles n'Ã©tniern pas iruerrogÃ©es, les etifants Ã©taient placÃ©es dans une cellule non fermÃ©e Ã clÃ©. ArrirÃ©e au conunissariat Ã 12 h 1 5, la requÃ©rante le quitta Ã 14 h 10. lorsquelle fut raccompagnÃ©e par la police chez ses parenls . oÃ¹ il fut procÃ©dÃ© Ã tute perquisition, laquelle ue donna d'ailleurs aucun rÃ©sultat .
Une procÃ©dure pÃ©nale ouverte contre la requÃ©rante fut classÃ©e vu l'irresponsabilitÃ© de celle-ci. due Ã son jeune Ã¢ge. Tout en affirrnunt que les actes de ses agents avaient Ã©tÃ© parfaitement rÃ©guliers, le chef de la police de Berlin regretta Ã l'Ã©gard des parems la maniÃ¨re dont les etrfants avaient Ã©tÃ© gardÃ©s au contnrissariat .
* Derant la Commission . la requÃ©rante Ã©tait reprÃ©sentÃ©e par Me S . Setseâ¢hs, avocat Ã Berlin .
En novembre 1977, le parquet classa une plainte pour sÃ©questration qui avait Ã©tÃ© dÃ©posÃ©e contre les agents par une association de parents .
Les parents de la requÃ©rante introduisirent alors contre la Ville de Berlin une action en dommages-intÃ©rÃªts pour tort moral. 1!s furent dÃ©boutÃ©s par le tribunal rÃ©gional de Berlin en novembre 1978 . lequel, aprÃ¨s enquÃ©te, estirna le tort rnoral non Ã©tab(i, !'enfant n'qvant subi aucun trouble. Ce jugentent Ã©tait sans appel. Les parents s'adressÃ¨rent alors au tribunal administratif de Berlin pour obtenir un jugerntent dÃ©claratoire de l'illÃ©galitÃ© de la dÃ©tention de leur enfant au cornmissariat de police. Le tribunal adrninistratif transmit l'affaire Ã la Cour d'appel de Berlin (Kammergericht) qui, par arrÃ©t rendu en octobre 1979, dÃ©clara la dernande irrecevab(e au niotif que l'intÃ©ressÃ©e n'avait plus d'intÃ©r@t juridique Ã obtenir un jugement dÃ©c(aratoire .
EN DROIT (Extrait ) La requÃ©rante se plaint essentiellement que le . . . janvier 1977, elle et deux de ses camarades d'Ã©cole furent amenÃ©es de l'Ã©cole au commissariat de police oÃ¹ elle furent gardÃ©es deux heures environ . La requÃ©rante Ã©tait alors Ã¢gÃ©e de 10 ans . Pendant une partie de leur sÃ©jour au commissariat, les enfants furent interrogÃ©es sur des vols survenus dans leur Ã©cole . Entre leurs interrogatoires, elles durent attendre une heure environ dans une cellule non fermÃ©e Ã clÃ© avant d'Ãªtre ramenÃ©es au domicile de leurs parents . Le Gouvemement dÃ©fendeur a fait savoir que les voies de recours internes n'ont pas Ã©lÃ© Ã©puisÃ©es puisque la requÃ©rante n'a prÃ©sentÃ© aucune demande d'indemnisation au titre de la loi sur l'indemnisation pour des mesures de poursuite pÃ©nale (SirEG) . Cependant . aux yeux de la Commission, la loi en question n'offrait pas un recours effectif quant aux griefs de la requÃ©rante . Les policiers en cause ne pouvaient ignorer que, vu son jeune Ã¢ge, la requÃ©rante n'Ã©tait pas pÃ©nalement responsable (strafunmilndig) . Les mesures de police prises Ã son encontre ne pouvaient donc Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©es comme des poursuites pÃ©nales, au sens de l'article 2, paragraphe 2, de la Loi . Du reste, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a aussi soutenu que la mesure en question ne constituait pas une arrestation provisoire au sens de l'article 127, paragraphe 2 . du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale (StPO), auquel renvoie l'article 2, paragraphe 2, nÂ° 2, de la Loi (S(rEG) . De plus, l'avocat de la requÃ©rante a soulignÃ© Ã just e
titre que la loi relative Ã l'indemnisation des victimes de poursuites injustifiÃ©es n'aurait pas permis de porter remÃ¨de au prÃ©judice moral allÃ©guÃ© par sa cliente ni de rÃ©pondre Ã sa demande tendant Ã faire constater qu'elle avait Ã©tÃ© illÃ©galement dÃ©tenue par la police . De fait, selon l'article 7, paragraphe 3, de la Loi (StrEG), la requÃ©rante aurait tout au plus pu obtenir une indemnitÃ© de 10 DM . dont I'octroi n'aurait pas comportÃ© la constatation que le traitement subi par l'intÃ©ressÃ©e Ã©tait contraire Ã la loi . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a soutenu en outre que le jugement du tribunal rÃ©gional en date du . . . novembre 1978, dÃ©boutant la requÃ©rante de son action civile en dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts (Amtshaftungsklage), devait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme la dÃ©cision interne dÃ©finitive quant au grief tirÃ© de l'article 5, paragraphe 1 . de la Convention et qu'en consÃ©quence la requÃ©te Ã©tait tardive (article 26 de la Convention) . La Commission ne peut suivre l'opinion du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur selon laquelle . vu la tardivitÃ© de la demande ultÃ©rieurement prÃ©sentÃ©e par la requÃ©rante conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 23, paragraphe 1, de la loi introductive Ã la loi sur l'organisation judiciaire (EGGVG) au tribunal administratif d'abord puis Ã la cour d'appel de Berlin (Kammergericht), cette demande ne constituait pas un recours efficace, au sens de l'article 26 de la Convention, puisqu'elle n'avait aucune chance de rÃ©ussir . Si la cour d'appel a dÃ©clarÃ© la dentande irrecevable, ce fut uniquement parce qu'Ã son avis la requÃ©rante n'avait aucun intÃ©rÃªt juridique Ã poursuivre l'affaire . On ne saurait en dÃ©duire que la requÃ©rante, qui contestait la rÃ©gularitÃ© des actes de la police, aurait dÃ» s'attendre Ã ce genre de raisonnement . Aussi n'est-il pas possible de conclure que la procÃ©dure devant la cour d'appel de Berlin a constituÃ© un recours inefficace . Enfin, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a soutenu que l'interrogatoire de la requÃ©rante au commissariat de police n'Ã©quivalait pas une privation de libertÃ© . Pour dÃ©terminer si quelqu'un a Ã©tÃ© .privÃ© de sa libertÃ©â¢, au sens d e l'article S, il faut partir de la situation concrÃ¨te de l'intÃ©ressÃ© (Affaire Engel et autres . Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme, Volume 22, p . 25, paragraphe 59) . Or, en l'espÃ¨ce, les enfants ont Ã©tÃ© seulement interrogÃ©s et ont dÃ» attendre dans une piÃ¨ce non fermÃ©e Ã clÃ© qu'on les ramÃ¨ne chez eux . Lorsqu'ils furent conduits au commissariat, le but Ã©tait de les interroger, non de les arrÃ©ter et de les dÃ©tenir . La Commission estime regrettable que les enfants aient pu ne pas comprendre le comportement de la police et se sentir privÃ©s de leur libertÃ© . NÃ©anmoins, compte tenu d'une apprÃ©ciation objective des Ã©lÃ©ments en sa possession, la Commission estime que, dans les circonstances de la cause, les actes incriminÃ©s n'ont pas constituÃ© une privation de libertÃ© au sens de l'article 5, paragraphe 1, de la Convention .
La Commission a certes dÃ©clarÃ©, dans sa jurisprudence antÃ©rieure, que l'article 5, paragraphe 1, s'applique Ã©galement Ã une privation de libertÃ© de trÃ¨s courte durÃ©e (DÃ©cisions et Rapports 18, pp . 154, 156 ; DÃ©cisions et Rappor(s 7, p . 123) . II faut nÃ©anmoins que les actes de la police puissent, dans les circonstances du cas d'espÃ¨ce, Ãªtre rÃ©ellement considÃ©rÃ©s comme une privation de libertÃ© . Les dÃ©cisions ici citÃ©es concernent le cas d'une personne antenÃ©e par la police dans un Ã©tablissement mÃ©dical pour y subir un examen sanguin auquel elle se refusait, et celui de deux ressortissants japonais qui furent, avant leur expulsion, arrÃªtÃ©s et dÃ©tenus en SuÃ¨de pendant une heure environ avant d'Ãªtre mis dans un avion Ã destination du Japon . Dans ces affaires-lÃ , l'action de la police avait manifestement pour objet de priver les intÃ©ressÃ©s de leur libertÃ© alors qu'en la prÃ©sente espÃ¨ce elle ne visait pas Ã incarcÃ©rer les enfants mais simplement Ã s'informer sur la maniÃ¨re dont ils s'Ã©taient appropriÃ©s les objets trouvÃ©s en leur possession et sur les vols survenus prÃ©cÃ©demment dans l'Ã©tablissement scolaire . La Commission a Ã©galemenl exaniinÃ© ce grief au regard de l'article 3 d e la Convention mais, pour regrettable et inopportune qu'ait pu Ãªtre l'action de la police en l'occurrence, elle n'Ã©quivaut pas en soi Ã un traitement inhumain ou dÃ©gradant . Certes, les mineurs ne sont pas pÃ©nalement responsables avant un certain Ã¢ge (14 ans gÃ©nÃ©ralement) mais il est justifiÃ©, dans l'intÃ©rÃªt d'une bonne administration de la justice et de la protection des droits d'autrui, de les soumettre Ã des mesures d'enquÃ©te, par exemple un interrogatoire de la police, en cas de soupÃ§on fondÃ© qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© impliquÃ©s dans des activitÃ©s qui seraient punissables s'ils Ã©taient pÃ©nalement responsables . II est bien sÃ»r nÃ©cessaire de mener les interrogatoires d'enfants d'une maniÃ¨re adaptÃ©e Ã leur Ã¢ge et Ã leur vulnÃ©rabilitÃ© . La prÃ©sente requÃ©rante n'a allÃ©guÃ© aucune irrÃ©gularitÃ© quant Ã l'interrogatoire qu'elle a subi Ã la police . Elle se plaint seulement d'avoir Ã©tÃ© placÃ©e quelque temps dans une cellule non fermÃ©e Ã clÃ© . Toutefois, rien ne dÃ©note que ce sÃ©jour l'ait particuliÃ¨rement affectÃ©e . La Commission tient compte Ã©galement du fait que la requÃ©rante se trouvait en compagnie de deux caniarades d'Ã©cole .
L'examen, par la Conimission, de ce grief tel qu'il a Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©, y compris un examen d'office, ne rÃ©vÃ¨le donc aucune apparence de violation des droits et libertÃ©s consacrÃ©s par la Convention, notamment en son article 5, paragraphes 1 et 3 . Il s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention .
- 165 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 19/03/1981Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page