Source: http://relevancy.bger.ch/php/clir/http/index.php?lang=fr&zoom=&type=show_document&highlight_docid=cedh%3A%2F%2F20000406_28917_95%3Afr
Timestamp: 2016-10-24 18:31:55+00:00
Document Index: 85405984

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 397', 'art. 429', 'art. 397', 'art. 5', 'art. 397', 'art. 429', 'ATF ', 'ATF ']

28917/95A.B. gegen Schweiz
SUISSE: Art. 35 par. 1 et 5 par. 4 et 5 CEDH. Epuisement des instances. Dur�e du contr�le d'une d�tention psychiatrique.
L'art. 397f CC pr�voit une proc�dure simple et rapide lorsqu'une privation de libert� � des fins d'assistance est ordonn�e. Selon l'art. 429a CC, toute personne l�s�e par une privation ill�gale de libert� a droit � une indemnit� � titre de dommages-int�r�ts; dans le cadre de cette action, il est possible d'all�guer que la proc�dure �tait ill�gale et qu'elle n'a pas �t� conduite rapidement au sens de l'art. 397f CC.
En l'esp�ce, la cour d'appel a confirm� l'existence d'une telle action et a attir� l'attention du requ�rant sur ce point. Le Tribunal f�d�ral a encore r�affirm� cette voie tant pour la privation de libert� � des fins d'assistance que pour l'observation de l'art. 5 par. 5 CEDH. Il n'y a d�s lors pas eu �puisement des instances, faute pour le requ�rant d'avoir introduit ce moyen efficace pour faire valoir son grief.
On 9 June 1994 an expert member of the Psychiatric Commission (Psychiatrische Kommission) of the Canton of Basel-Stadt examined the applicant in hospital. As a result, the Psychiatric Commission authorised on 15 June 1994 his forced confinement in hospital (zwangsweise Hospitalisierung) until 21 July 1994. In its decision the Commission referred to the applicant's chronic illness, in particular his manic ideas (Wahnideen) and that he might endanger others. The Commission thereby relied on S. 397a et seq. of the Swiss Civil Code (Zivilgesetzbuch) concerning detention for welfare purposes (f�rsorgerische Freiheitsentziehung; privation de libert� � des fins d'assistance; see below, Relevant domestic law and practice).
"Il est de jurisprudence que le recours de droit public exige un int�r�t actuel et pratique � ce que la d�cision attaqu�e soit annul�e: le Tribunal f�d�ral doit trancher des questions concr�tes, et non pas th�oriques. L'int�r�t actuel n�cessaire fait d�faut, en particulier lorsque l'acte de l'autorit� a �t� ex�cut� ou est devenu sans objet ... Toutefois, le Tribunal f�d�ral renonce � faire d'un tel int�r�t une condition de recevabilit� du recours de droit public quand cette exigence emp�cherait le contr�le de la constitutionnalit� d'un acte qui peut se reproduire en tout temps et qui, en raison de sa br�ve dur�e, �chapperait toujours � sa censure ...
En l'esp�ce, l'internement de la recourante a dur� du 13 au 17 juin 1982. La recourante n'a d�s lors plus d'int�r�t actuel, puisque la mesure critiqu�e a pris fin. Les circonstances exceptionnelles qui permettent de renoncer � cette exigence ne sont pas r�alis�es. En mati�re de privation de libert� � des fins d'assistance, le s�jour dans un �tablissement appropri� n'est pas l�galement limit� � un bref laps de temps : il peut se prolonger tant que l'assistance personnelle ne peut pas �tre fournie d'une autre mani�re aux personnes indiqu�es � l'art. 397a CC. L'int�r�t actuel peut donc exister encore au moment o� le Tribunal f�d�ral est saisi d'un recours de droit public.
On ne saurait dire que celui qui a �t� relax� apr�s une mesure de privation de libert� � des fins d'assistance a encore un int�r�t actuel � former un recours de droit public parce qu'il peut se pr�valoir de l'ill�galit� du placement pour r�clamer une indemnit�. L'art. 429a CC donne droit � une indemnit� � titre de dommages-int�r�ts et de r�paration morale en cas de privation ill�gale de libert� ..." (Arr�ts du Tribunal f�d�ral [ATF] 109 I a 170 et seq.).
This case-law also applies to other types of detention (see ATF 110 Ia 140) and was confirmed in 1999 (ATF 125 Ia 394). In the last mentioned decision, the Federal Court furthermore generally found that a person who had been released from detention can, pursuant to Article 5 � 5 of the Convention, institute separate proceedings for damages in which all complaints may be raised about the unlawfulness of detention
1. The applicant complains under Article 5 � 4 of the Convention of the length of the proceedings. Thus, he filed his request for release on 5 August 1994. While he was released on 7 September 1994, the Court of Appeal gave its decision on 15 December 1994, i.e. only after four months.
2. Under Articles 6 � 1 and 13 of the Convention the applicant complains that he did not have access to a court and an effective remedy, respectively. Thus, both the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court rejected his complaints as he had meanwhile been released and lacked a legal interest.
The applicant complains under Article 5 � 4 of the Convention of the length of the proceedings in which he was involved. Under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention he complains that in this respect he did not have an effective remedy in that the domestic courts rejected his complaints as he had meanwhile been released.
The Government furthermore point out that the applicant has not complied with the time-limit of six months laid down in Article 35 � 1 of the Convention. Once he had been released from detention, constant Swiss case-law obliged the courts to reject his appeals as he lacked interest therein. Thus, the six months-period started to run at the latest when the decision of the Court of Appeal was served on the applicant on 16 January 1995. As the applicant only did so on 5 October 1995, the application is out of time. The Government also refer to the possibility for the applicant to initiate compensation proceedings.
The applicant accepts the case-law according to which an appeal is no longer entertained once the person has been released from detention. However, in practice the Federal Court will depart from this principle when the question might be posed again at any time under the same or similar circumstances or when owing to its fundamental importance there is a public interest in a decision. All this the applicant argued before the Federal Court. In the present case, it was not clear from the outset whether the remedy lacked prospects of success. As a result, the applicant must be considered as having complied with the time-limit set out in Article 35 � 1 of the Convention. As regards the possibility of instituting compensation proceedings, the applicant points out that their purpose is primarily to obtain financial relief and not to complain about Convention violations.
The Court notes at the outset that it is in dispute between the parties whether or not the applicant was deprived of his liberty within the meaning of Article 5 � 1 of the Convention. The Court need nevertheless not decide this matter since the application is inadmissible for the following reasons.
According to Article 35 � 1 of the Convention, "the Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law".
According to the case-law of the Court and the Commission, in order to comply with these requirements the applicant must make normal use of remedies which are likely to be effective and adequate to remedy the matters of which he complains (see the Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland judgment of 29 October 1992, Series A no. 246, p. 23, �� 47 et seq.; Eur. Comm. HR, no. 10978/84, Dec. 14.10.86, D.R. 49, p. 145).
The Court notes that S. 397f provides for a speedy judicial procedure, if detention for welfare purposes is imposed. According to S. 429a of the Swiss Civil Code, a person may file a claim for damages and just satisfaction for unlawful detention for welfare purposes. Such a claim may include, inter alia, the complaint that the proceedings were unlawful in that they were not conducted speedily within the meaning of S. 397f. In its decision of 15 December 1994 the Court of Appeal confirmed the possibility of such a claim for damages in the present case and drew the applicant's attention to it. Such a claim for damages has furthermore been confirmed by the Federal Court's case-law both with reference to detention for welfare purposes and more generally in respect of Article 5 � 5 of the Convention.
The applicant therefore had at his disposal a remedy which would have enabled him to raise the complaints he is now making before the Court. As he failed to institute such proceedings, he has not exhausted domestic remedies as required by Article 35 � 1 of the Convention.
It follows that the application must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 � 4 of the Convention.
Erik Fribergh � � ���� Registrar
Christos Rozakis � ��� President