Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19840313-946681
Timestamp: 2017-01-18 10:00:24+00:00
Document Index: 191510338

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 5', 'arrêt ', "l'article 12", "l'article 43", "l'article 8", "l'article 27"]

Type d'affaire : DecisionType 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 : 9466/81Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1984-03-13;9466.81 Analyses : (Art. 5-1) LIBERTE PHYSIQUE, (Art. 5-1-e) ALIENE, (Art. 5-4) INTRODUIRE UN RECOURSParties : Demandeurs : S.Défendeurs : ROYAUME-UNITexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 9466/8 1 S . v/the UNITED KINGDO M S . c/ROYAUME-UN I DECISION of 13 March 1984 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 13 mars 1984 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 8 of the Convention : Question whether the transfer of a prisoner, albeit for security reasons, without notifying his family afterwards in time to prevent them paying a wasted visit to the previous place of detention, constituted an unjusnif ed interference with the right to respect for family life (Complaint declared admissible) .
Article 8 de la Convention : Y a-t-il ingÃ©rence injustifiÃ©e dans l'exercice du droit au respect de la vie familiale lorsqu'un dÃ©ienu, pour des raisons de sÃ©curitÃ©, est transfÃ©rÃ© d'une prison Ã une autre sans que sa famille en soit informÃ©e Ã temps pour lui Ã©pargner une vaine visite Ã l'Ã©tablissement que le dÃ©tenu a quittÃ© ? (Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable) .
(franÃ§ais : voir p . 45)
The applicant is a United Kingdom citizen bom in 1953 at present detained at HM Prison Parkhurst, Newport . He is assisted before the Commission by Mr A . Logan- solicitor, Guildford . In December 1975 he was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment for offences of robbery . In May 1977 he was sentenced to a further ten years' imprisonment for stabbing a prison govemor and an officer of Liverpool prison . He is one of the country's 270 or so prisoners placed in the highest security category, Category A, because he is considered to represent a real danger to the public . -41-
According to information submitted by the Goverrunent, the Secretary of State has directed, in accordance with Section 12 (2) of the Prison Act 1952, that prisoners may be temporarily transferred from one prison to another to avoid a troublesome or potentially troublesome situation . It is apparently necessary that such transfers be made at short notice without consulting the prisoner . The applicant had been detained at HM Prison Wormwood Scrubs, but was temporarily transferred on several occasions in the interests of good order . It is stated that the applicant was transferred : 24 February 1979 - 11 April 1979 to Winchester, 19 April 1979 - 21 May 1979 to Leeds , 22 August 1979 - 27 September 1979 to Durham ,
I I August 1980 - 8 September 1980 to Wandsworth, 10 September 1980 - 7 October 1980 to Wandsworth . The transfers to Winchester and Durham followed attempts to escape . While at Winchester the applicant was serving a disciplinary punishment for attempting to escape and for being in unauthorised possession of prison property . His punishment included seventy days loss of privileges, and he was detained in a secure cell with double doors and no moveable fumiture . On other transfers he was detained as an ordinary Rule 43 (GOAD) prisoner, ie removed from association with other prisoners for reasons of "good order and discipline" . His escape attempts resulted in his placement on the escape list . Just before the submission of this information by the Government (December 1981), the applicant was transferred to Gartree prison, then on 20 November 1981 to Leicester . on 27 November 1981 to Wandsworth and now he is detained at Parkhurst prison . The applicant's principal complaint about his frequent transfers concerns visit s from his family and the fact that they are not notified of his whereabouts . The applicant claims that as a Category A prisoner he has to arrange his visits well in advance . His mother on 5 August 1980 allegedly booked such a visit for I I August 1980 whilst the applicant was at HM Prison Wormwood Scmbs . The Government state that, although the staff at Wormwood Scrubs were aware that a visiting order had been sent out on I August 1980, they did not know the precise date of the intended visit . This the applicant's mother contests . She claims that she has to arrange the exact day and time with the prison authorities before visiting her son, in view of his frequent transfers . On I I August 1980 the applicant was transferred to HM Prison Wandsworth, so when the applicant's mother and sister arrived (having journeyed all the way from Manchester in the North of England) they were not able to see the applicant, and claim not to have been told where he was . -42-
The Govemment state that, for security reasons, the movement of Category A prisoners is strictly confidential and that it was not possible to inform the relatives of the applicant's whereabouts while he was in transit . The applicant claims, however, that he had been transferred from Worrnwood Scrubs at 13 .00 h, arriving at Wandsworth at 13 .25 h . His mother and sister arrived at Wormwood Scmbs at 14 .30 h, after the applicant's transition had taken place . They could have been told where he was and they would have had time to travel ac ro ss London, nevertheless, to visit him . The Govemment stated, however, that the applicant ar ri ved at Wandsworth at 14 .20 h . The applicant's mother stated that this had happened to her on at least three occasions, when she had had to travel to towns like Durham, Leicester and London, only to be told at the prison gate that her son had been transferred . Complaints up to the Home Secretary have proved fruitless . In a reply to a query by the applicant's Member of Parliament . . . . the Home Office stated on . . . 1981 their regret at the inconvenience caused to the applicant's mother and sister with the applicant's transfer on II August 1980 . Another incident allegedly occurred when the applicant was transferred from Leicester to Wandsworth . On 24 November 1981 the applicant handed in to the prison officers a visiting order for his mother . He was transferred without notice on Friday, 27 November 1981 to Wandsworth, where he requested that his mother be notified by telephone [hat he had been moved . The applicant claims that he was told by the Prison Governor to write to his mother the following Monday and to make a "Welfare application" at the same time . The applicant also claims that on the Monday he wrote to his mother and made a welfare application that she be notified by telephone of his transfer in view of her imminent visit to Leicester prison . The Government's only record is that he wrote to his sister . The applicant has, however, produced the letter which he wrote to his mother on 30 November 1981, together with its envelope date-stamped I December 1981, when it was received by the post office . In that letter he enclosed a new visiting order on which is marked by the prison authorities "visit booked for 8 .12 .81, 14 .15h" . The applicant states that on 30 November he was told that his mother had been notified of the transfer, although this was not the case . On I December his mother apparently telephoned Leicester prison to enquire whether her son was still there and if she could visit him the following day . This was allegedly conftrmed and the visit agreed . (There is no prison record of this call .) When the applicant's mother arrived at Leicester prison on 2 December 1981 she was informed that he had been transferred on 27 November . Since November 1982 all the applicant's visits are booked in advance .
THE LAW (Extract ) The applicant has complained of frequent prison transfers without adequate 1. notice to himself or his family . The Govemment contended that the applicant was disruptive, having a propensity to escape, and his transfer for "cooling off periods", in conditions of secrecy, was necessary . Article 8 of the Convention provides that . " I . Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence . 2 . There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others . " The Commission notes that, in principle, the atrangement of visits is the prisoner's responsibility . He has to send his family the necessary visiting orders . However, on several occasions, and at the present time, the applicant, who is one of the 270 or so top secuiity prisoners in the country, has had to book his visits with the prison authorities in advance . The Commission also notes that on at least two occasions the applicant was transferred when his family were due to visit him in prison, without any check being made in the visiting order records, or speedy assistance being offered by the prison authorities to notify the family of the applicant's whereabouts after the transfer . The Govemment apparently stated that it would be inappropriate to check or take such visiting records into account when moving the applicant . The Commission finds that on the two occasions when the applicant's famil y was unable to visit him, and had insufficient information as to his prison location, there was an interference with the applicant's right to respect for family life, ensured by Article 8, para . I of the Convention . However, it considers that the question whether this interference was justified for the prevention or disorder and crime, within the meaning of Article 8, para . 2, raises a complex issue of fact and law, with particular regard to the policy of not verifying visiting order records, which necessitates an examination of this aspect of the application on its merits . It follows that this pa rt of the application cannot be regarded as manifestly illfounded within the meaning of Article 27, para . 2 of the Convention and must be declared admissible, no other grounds for declaring it inadmissible having been established .
(TRADUCTION) EN FAIT (Extrait ) Le requÃ©rant est un ressortissant du Royaume-Uni, nÃ© en 1953 et dÃ©tenu Ã l'heure actuelle Ã la prison d'Etat de Parkhurst, Newport . II est reprÃ©sentÃ© devant la Commission par M . A . Logan, solicitor Ã Guilford . En dÃ©cembre 1975 . il fut condamnÃ© Ã dix ans de prison pour vols qualifiÃ©s . En mai 1977, il fut condamnÃ© Ã dix ans de prison supplÃ©mentaires pour avoir poignardÃ© un directeur de prison et un gardien de la prison de Liverpool . Il figure parmi les 270 dÃ©tenus placÃ©s sous trÃ¨s haute surveillance et relevant de la catÃ©gorie A parce qu'il est considÃ©rÃ© comme reprÃ©sentant un rÃ©el danger public . Selon les informations soumises par le Gouvernement, le Ministre a donnÃ© les instructions, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 12, par . 2, de la loi de 1952 sur les prisons, pour que cenains prisonniers puissent Ãªtre temporairement transfÃ©rÃ©s d'un Ã©tablissement Ã un autre afin d'Ã©viter une agitation, rÃ©elle ou potentielle . II semble nÃ©cessaire que ces transferts se fassent avec un prÃ©avis trÃ¨s bref et sans consulter le dÃ©tenu . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© incarcÃ©rÃ© Ã la prison d'Etat de Wormwood Scrubs, mais temporairement transfÃ©rÃ© Ã plusieurs reprises pour raisons de discipline au sein de la prison . Il aurait Ã©tÃ© ainsi transfÃ©rÃ© : du 24 fÃ©vrier 1979 au 11 avril 1979 Ã Winchester, du 19 avril 1979 au 21 mai 1979 Ã Leeds , du 22 aoÃ»t 1979 au 27 septembre 1979 Ã Durham, du 11 aoÃ»t 1980 au 8 septembre 1980 Ã Wandsworth . du 10 septembre 1980 au 7 octobre 1980 Ã Wandsworth . Les trans(Ã¨rements Ã Winchester et Durham faisaient suite Ã des tentatives d'Ã©vasion . Lorsqu'il Ã© tait Ã Winchester, le requÃ©rant purgeait une peine disciplinaire pour avoir tentÃ© de s'Ã©vader et pour dÃ©tention non autorisÃ©e d'effets appa rtenant Ã la prison . Sa punition comportait notamment 70 jours de perte d'avantages et une incarcÃ©ration dans une cellule de haute sÃ©curitÃ©, munie de doubles portes et d'un mobilier fixe . A l'occasion d'autres transferts, il fut dÃ©tenu comme prisonnier placÃ© sous le rÃ©gime ordinaire de l'article 43 (GOAD), c'est-Ã -dire mis Ã l'Ã©cart des autres dÃ©tenus pour des raisons Â« de bon ordre et de discipline â¢ . Ses tentatives d'Ã©vasion ont eu pour rÃ©sultat de le faire mettre sur la liste des dÃ©tenus ayant tendance Ã s'Ã©vader . Juste avant la communication de cette information par le Gouvernement (dÃ©cembre 1981), le requÃ©rant fut transfÃ©rÃ© Ã la prison de Gartree, puis Ã nouveau Ã celles de Leicester le 20 novembre 1981 et de Wandsworth le 27 novembre 1981 et . Ã l'heure actuelle, il se trouve incarcÃ©rÃ© Ã la prison de Parkhurst .
S'agissant de ses frÃ©quents transtÃ¨rements, le grief principal du requÃ©rant concerne les visites de sa famille et le fait que celle-ci n'est pas informÃ©e de ses dÃ©placements . Le requÃ©rant prÃ©tend qu'en tant que dÃ©tenu de catÃ©gorie A, il doit programmer Ã l'avance les visites Ã recevoir . Le 5 ao0t 1980, sa mÃ©re aurait rÃ©servÃ© une visite pour le 11 aoÃ»t 1980 alors que le requÃ©rant Ã©tait Ã la prison d'Etat de Wormwood Scrubs . De son cÃ´tÃ©, le Gouvernement affirme que si le personnel de cet Ã©tablissement avait effectivement eu connaissance de l'envoi d'une autorisation de visite le 1Â° 1 aoÃ¹t 1980, il ne connaissait pas la date exacte de la visite envisagÃ©e . La mÃ¨re du requÃ©rant le conteste : elle soutient que compte tenu des frÃ©quents transfÃ¨rements de son fils, elle devait convenir avec prÃ©cision du jour et de l'heure de la visite avec les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires . Le 11 aoÃ»t 1980, le requÃ©rant fut transfÃ©rÃ© Ã la prison d'Etat de Wandsworth, si bien qu'Ã leur arrivÃ©e Ã la prison, la mÃ¨re et la sÂ¢ur du rÃ©quÃ©rant, qui venaient de Manchester dans le nord de l'Angleterre, n'ont pas pu voir le dÃ©tenu et prÃ©tendent qu'on ne leur a pas dit oÃ¹ le trouver . Le Gouvernement explique que, pour des raisons de sÃ©curitÃ©, les mouvements des dÃ©tenus de catÃ©gorie A sont rigoureusement tenus secrets et qu'il n'est pas possible d'informer les parents de l'endroit oÃ¹ se trouve le dÃ©tenu lorsqu'il est en transit . Le requÃ©rant soutient cependant avoir Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ© de Wonnwood Scrubs Ã 13 h et Ã¨tre arrivÃ© Ã Wandswo rt h Ã 13 h 25 . Or, sa mÃ©re et sa soe ur sont arrivÃ©es Ã Wormwood Scrubs Ã 14 h 30, aprÃ¨s le transferement . Il aurait Ã©tÃ© possible de leur dire oÃ¹ il se trouvait et elles auraient eu le temps de traverser Londres pour lui rendre visite . Le Gouvemement affirme de son cÃ´tÃ© que le requÃ©rant est arrivÃ© Ã Wandsworth Ã 14 h 20 . La mÃ¨re du requÃ©rant affirme que la mÃ¨me situation s'est reproduite Ã trois reprises au moins et qu'aprÃ©s avoir voyagÃ© jusqu'Ã Durham, Leicester et Londres, elle s'est entendu dire Ã la grille de la prison que son fils avait Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ© . Les plaintes qu'elle a adressÃ©es au Ministre de l'IntÃ©rieur n'ont pas eu de suite . Dans une rÃ©ponse Ã une question posÃ©e par Lord . . ., le dÃ©putÃ© du requÃ©rant, le ministÃ©re de l'IntÃ©rieur a exprimÃ© le . . . 1981 ses regrets devant les inconvÃ©nients causÃ©s Ã la mÃ¨re et Ã la so:ur du requÃ©rant par le transfÃ©rement de leur parent le 11 aoÃ»t 1980 . Un autre incident se serait produit lors du transferement du requÃ©rant de Leicester Ã Wandsworth . Le 24 novembre 1981, le requÃ©rant remit au gardien de cet Ã©tablissement une autorisation de visite pour sa mÃ¨re . TransfÃ©rÃ© sans prÃ©avis le vendredi 27 novembre 1981 Ã Wandsworth, il demanda que l'on informe sa mÃ¨re par tÃ©lÃ©phone de son dÃ©placement . Il prÃ©tend que le directeur de la prison lui demanda d'Ã©crire Ã sa mÃ¨re le lundi suivant et de faire simultanÃ©ment une Â« demande d'assistanceâ¢ . Le requÃ©rant aurait effectivement Ã©crit le lundi Ã sa mÃ©re et formulÃ© une demande d'assistance pour que, compte tenu de l'imminence de sa visite Ã Leicester ,
sa mÃ¨re soit informÃ©e par tÃ©lÃ©phone . La seule trace Ã©crite gardÃ©e par le Gouvernement est que l'intÃ©ressÃ© Ã Ã©crit Ã sa seur . Le requÃ©rant a cependant produit la lettre qu'il a Ã©crite Ã sa mÃ¨re le 30 novembre 1981, ainsi que l'enveloppe portant la date du 1Â°' dÃ©cembre 1981 Ã son arrivÃ©e Ã la poste . Dans cette lettre, le requÃ©rant envoyait une nouvelle autorisation de visite avec la mention portÃ©e par les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires : - visite rÃ©servÃ©e pour le 8 .12 .1981 Ã 14 h 15 . . Le requÃ©rant affirme qu'on lui a dit le 30 novembre que sa mÃ¨re avait Ã©tÃ© informÃ©e de son changement, alors que tel n'Ã©tait pas le cas . Le ler dÃ©cembre, sa mÃ¨re aurait tÃ©lÃ©phonÃ© Ã la prison de Leicester pour demander si son fils y Ã©tait toujours et si elle pouvait lui rendre visite le lendemain . Elle aurait reÃ§u confirmation et agrÃ©ment de la visite (il n'y a pas trace de cet appel Ã la prison) . Lorsque la mÃ¨re du requÃ©rant arriva Ã la prison de Leicester le 2 dÃ©cembre 1981, elle fut informÃ©e que son fils avait Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ© le 27 novembre . Depuis novembre 1982, toutes les visites du requÃ©rant sont retenues longtemps Ã l'avance .
EN DROIT (Extrait ) Le requÃ©rant se plaint de ses frÃ©quents transRrements sans que sa famille ou lui-mÃ©me en aient Ã©tÃ© convenablement informÃ©s . Le Gouvernement a soutenu que le requÃ©rant Ã©tait un fauteur de trouble, qu'il cherchait toujours Ã s'Ã©vader et qu'il Ã©tait nÃ©cessaire de le transfÃ©rer secrÃ¨tement pour des - pÃ©riodes de mise Ã l'ombreâ¢ .
L'article 8 de la Convention est ainsi libellÃ© : â¢ I . Toute personne a droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e et familiale, de son domicile et de sa correspondance . 2 . II ne peut y avoir ingÃ©rence d'une autoritÃ© publique dans l'exercice de ce droit que pour autant que cette ingÃ©rence est prÃ©vue par la loi et qu'elle constitue une mesure qui, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, est nÃ©cessaire Ã la sÃ©curitÃ© nationale, Ã la sÃ»retÃ© publique, au bien-Ãªtre Ã©conomique du pays, Ã la dÃ©fense de l'ordre et Ã la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales, Ã la protection de la santÃ© ou de la morale, ou Ã la protection des droits ou libenÃ©s d'autrui . . La Commission relÃ¨ve qu'en principe, il appartient au dÃ©tenu de s'occuper de l'organisation des visites . C'est Ã lui d'envoyer Ã sa famille les autorisations de visite requises . A plusieurs reprises cependant et encore maintenant, le requÃ©rant, qui est l'un des 270 dÃ©tenus dans le pays Ã Ãªtre placÃ©s sous haute surveillance, doit retenir longtemps Ã l'avance auprÃ¨s des autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires les dates de ces visites . La Commission relÃ¨ve Ã©galement qu'Ã deux reprises au moins, le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© transfÃ©rÃ© alors que sa famille devait lui rendre visite Ã la prison et ceci sans qu'aucun contrÃ´le sur les registres d'autorisations de visite n'ait eu lieu ni qu'aucune assistanc e
rapide n'ait Ã©tÃ© offerte par les autoritÃ©s pÃ©nitentiaires pour informer la famille du lieu oÃ¹ se trouvait le requÃ©rant aprÃ¨s le transfÃ¨rement . Le Gouvernement semble prÃ©tendre qu'il ne serait pas indiquÃ© de consulter ces registres de visites ou d'en tenir compte lors du transfÃ©rement du requÃ©rant . La Commission estime que . ces deux fois-lÃ , alors que la famille du requÃ©rant n'a pas pu lui rendre visite et n'a obtenu que des renseignements insuffisants sur le nouvel Ã©tablissement, il y a eu ingÃ©rence dans l'exercice du droit du requÃ©rant au respect de sa vie familiale, garanti par l'article 8, par . I . de la Convention . Elle estime cependant que le point de savoir si cette ingÃ©rence se justifiait pour la dÃ©fense de l'ordre ou la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales au sens de l'anicle 8, par . 2, soulÃ¨ve des questions complexes de fait et de droit, en raison notamment de l'usage de ne pas consulter les registres d'autorisations de visites, qui nÃ©cessitent un examen du bien-fondÃ© de cette partie de la requÃªte . Il s'ensuit que la requÃ¨te ne saurait, sur ce point, Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ©e comme manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, par . 2, de la Convention et qu'elle doit Ã©tre dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable, aucun autre motif d'irrecevabilitÃ© n'ayant Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli .
- 48 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 13/03/1984Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page