Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19780509-794077
Timestamp: 2017-04-24 13:34:38+00:00
Document Index: 226803775

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 27"]

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 7940/77Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1978-05-09;7940.77 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 3) PEINE DEGRADANTE, (Art. 3) PEINE INHUMAINEParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : ROYAUME-UNITexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 7940/77 X . c/the UNITED KINGDOM ' . . ~ X . c/ROYAUME-UNI ' DECISION of 9 May 1978 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 9 mai 1978 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÂ®t e
Article 8, paragraph 1 of the Convention : Appointment of a Guardian ad litem for a pen;on who has just undergone a brain operation . On the facts, no interference in the right to respect for family life .
Article 8, peregraphe 1, de la Convention : DÃ©signation d'un curateur ad litem Ã une personne venant de subir une opÃ©ration du ce rveau. En f'espÃ©ce, aucune atteinte au droit au respect de la vie privÃ©e .
Summe ry of the facts
I fiancats : voir p . 226)
The apphcant, a United Kingdom citizen resident in France, is a barrister In 1975 proceedings were pending before the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in London between the applicant and a firm of solicitors. At that time the applicant was recuperating after the removal of a brain tumor. In July 1975 the Master of the High Court of Justice ordered the appointment of a Guardian ad litem for the applicant.
The applicant was represemed before the Commisvion by Mr Uziell-Hamibon, aolicitor in London . Le reoudrant Atait reprÃ©aentÃ© devant la Commission par Mâ¢ Uziell-Hamilton, solicitor Ã Londres .
THE LAW The applicant has complained that the Order to appoint a Guardian ad litem denied him his capacity to act . Since he was thereby implicitly found to be menially ill or feeble-minded, he was liable to be detained and incarcerated in the United Kingdom . He has alleged violations of Articles 5 and 8 of the Convention . The Commission notes in the first place that the object of Article 5 of the Convention is to guarantee liberty of the person, and in particular to provide guarantees against arbitrary arrest or detention . However, as it appears clear that the applicant's liberty has in no way been restricted by the English authorities, no question arises under Article 5 of the Convention . The Commission has examined the applicant's complaint under the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention which inter alia provides that everyone has the right to respect for his private life . A court action was instituted against the applicant by a solicitor's firm in 1975 . It is submitted that the solicitors acting for the applicant felt unable to deal with the matter adequately and therefore obtained a medical opinion from Dr . S . according to which the applicant was both mentally and physically incapable of managing his affairs . On . . . July 1975, upon hearing the solicitor for both the plaintiff and the defendant, that is the applicant, the Master in the Oueen's Bench Division consequently decided to appoint a Guardian ad litem for him . The applicant admits that he was physically crippled at the relevant time after having undergone an operation for the removal of a tumour in his brain . He denies, on the other hand, that he was feebleminded . In examining this case the Commission has attached particular importance to the fact that the Order complained of was made following an application of the applicant's own solicitors, who considered that they were unable properly to deal with the applicant's case since he was suffering from the consequences of a brain operation . The Order was moreover based on a medical opinion certifying that the applicant was for mental and physical reasons not able to manage his affairs . The Commission noted on the other hand that the Court possibly acted with some precipitation by not making a more thorough investigation into the applicant's state of health . However, the applicant has not submitted any concrete details as to how either his professional or private reputation has been damaged by reason of making the Order on . . . July 1975 . In all the circumstances of the case, and considering that the court action instituted against the applicant was subsequently set aside and that the Order for the Guardian ad litem rescinded, the Commission finds no prima facie evidence to suggest that the applicant was ever adversely affected by the relevant Order to the effect that there was an interferenc e
with his right to respect for his private life within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 8 of the Convention . Even assuming that the applicant has exhausted the remedies available to him under English law, an examination of .this case by the Commission as it has 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 particular in the above Article . It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 121 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commissio APPLICATION INADMISSIBL E nDECLARSTHI
RÃ©sumÃ© des faits Le requÃ©rant, citoyen du Royaume-Uni domiciliÃ© en France, est avocat . En 1975, un litige entre le requÃ©rant et un cabinet de solicitors Ã©tait pendant devant la Cour supÃ©rieure de Londres . (High Court of Justice, Oueen's Bench Division) . A cette Ã©poque, le requÃ©rant se trouvait en convalescence aprÃ©s l'ablation d'une tumeurcÃ©rÃ©brale. En juillet 1975, le magist2t auxiliaire de la Cour (Master of the High Court of Justice) dÃ©cida de pourvoir le requÃ©rant d'un curateur ad litem .
I iRADUC7JON1
EN DROIT, Le requÃ©rant se plaint que la dÃ©cision de .nommer uncurateur ad litem revenait Ã© lui dÃ©nier sa capacitÃ© d'agir . Etant ainsi considÃ©rÃ© implicitement comme malade mental ou faible d'esprit, il Ã©tait susceptible d'Ãªtre dÃ©tenu et internÃ© au Royaume-Uni . II allÃ©gue la violation des aiticles 5 et 8 de la . Convention . La Commission relÃ©ve en premier lieu que l'article 5 de la CÃ´nvention a pour Ã´bjet de garantir la libertÃ© de la personne et notamment de fournir des garanties contre toute arrestation ou dÃ©tention Ã¢rbitraires . Toutefois, comme il apparait Ã l'Ã©vidence que les autoritÃ©s anglaises n'ont nullement restreint'la libertÃ© du requÃ©rant, il ne se pose aucune question sous l'angle de l'article 5 de la Convention .
La Commission a examinÃ© les griefs formulÃ©s par le requÃ©rant sous l'angle du premier paragraphe de l'article 8 de la Convention, qui prÃ©voit notamment que toute personne a droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e . Une action en justice a Ã©tÃ© engagÃ©e en 1975 contre le requÃ©rant par un cabinet de solicitors . Les solicitors reprÃ©sentant le requÃ©rant, le jugeant incapable de s'occuper convenablement de l'affaire, ont obtenu du Dr . S . une attestation selon laquelle le requÃ©rant Ã©tait Ã la fois mentalement et-physiquement incapable de gÃ©rer ses affaires . Le . . . juillet 1975, aprÃ©s avoir entendu les solicitors du demandeur et du dÃ©fendeur, c'est-Ã©-dire du requÃ©rant, le magistrat auxiliaire de la Cour dÃ©cida de lui dÃ©signer un curateur ad litem . Le requÃ©rant reconnaÃ®t qu'il Ã©tait Ã l'Ã©poque physiquement handicapÃ© Ã la suite de l'ablation d'une tumeur au cerveau . Il nie par contre avoir Ã©tÃ© faible d'esprit . Dans l'examen de ce cas, la Commission a attachÃ© une importance particuliÃ©re au fait que la dÃ©cision incriminÃ©e avait Ã©tÃ© prise Ã la demande des solicitors du requÃ©rant, qui estimaient eux-mÃªmes ne pouvoir traiter convenablement de l'affaire, le requÃ©rant souffrant des sÃ©quelles d'une opÃ©ration du cerveau . La dÃ©cision se fondait en outre sur l'avis d'un mÃ©decin certifiant que le requÃ©rant Ã©tait, pour des raisons physiques et mentales, dans l'incapacitÃ© de gÃ©rer ses affaires . La Commission relÃ¨ve en passant que la Cour a peutÃªtre agi avec quelque prÃ©cipitation en ne procÃ©dant pas Ã une enquÃªte plus approfondie sur l'Ã©tat de santÃ© du requÃ©rant . Toutefois, celui-ci n'a pas fourni de dÃ©tails sur la maniÃ©re dont sa rÃ©putation privÃ©e ou professionnelle aurait pu Ãªtre compromise Ã la suite de la dÃ©cision du . . . juillet 1975 . Vu les circonstances de l'affaire et considÃ©rant que la demande en justice formÃ©e contre le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© ultÃ©rieurement Ã©cartÃ©e et l'ordonnance dÃ©signant un curateur ad litem rÃ©voquÃ©e, la Commission ne trouve aucun commencement de preuve donnant Ã penser que la dÃ©cision en question ait jamais nui au requÃ©rant au point d'avoir attentÃ© Ã son droit au respect de la vie privÃ©e, au sens de l'article 8, paragraphe 1, de la Convention . En supposant que le requÃ©rant ait Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours dont il disposait en droit anglais, un examen de l'affaire telle qu'elle a Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©e Ã la Commission, y compris un examen d'office, ne rÃ©vÃ©ledonc aucune apparence de violation des droits et libertÃ©s inoncÃ©s dans la Convention et en particulier dans l'article prÃ©citÃ© . Il s'ensuit que la requÃ©te est manifestement mal fondÃ©e, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention .
Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DÃCLARELA RE Q UETEIRRECEVABLE .
- 227 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 09/05/1978Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page