Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19770516-769776
Timestamp: 2017-07-23 16:56:48+00:00
Document Index: 297623563

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 3", "l'article 27", '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2']

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevable ; partiellement recevable ; requête jointe à la requête n° 6878/75Numérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 7697/76Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1977-05-16;7697.76 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 9-1) LIBERTE DE RELIGIONParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : BELGIQUETexte : APPLICATIQN/REQUÃTE NÂ° 7697/7 6 X . v/BELGIU M X . c/BELGIQU E DECISION of 16 May 1977 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISIQN du 16 mai 1977 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 3 of the Convention : This provtsion can nor be interpreted as requiring particular economic and social measures for re/eased convicts.
Article 3 de la Convention : Cette disposition ne peut Ãªtre interprÃ©tÃ©e comme imposant des mesures Ã©conomiques et sociales spÃ©cifiques en faveur des condamnÃ©s libÃ©rÃ©s.
(English : see p . 1951
CondamnÃ© en avril 1975 Ã une peine de pn'son pour enlÃ©vement de mineure , le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© libÃ©rÃ© en fÃ©vrier 7977, dÃ©pourvu de ressources et sans emploi.
EN DROIT IExtrait l Le requÃ©rant se plaint d'avoir Ã©tÃ© remis en libertÃ© sans ressources . Il semble allÃ©guer de ce fait la violation de l'article 3 de la Convention, qui prohibe tout traitement inhumain ou dÃ©gradant . Cette disposition ne peut cependant Ã¨tre interprÃ©tÃ©e en l'espÃ©ce comme impÃ´sant aux Parties Contractantes de prendre des mesures Ã©conomiques et sociales spÃ©cifiques de nature Ã assurer un minimum vital ou un emploi aux personnes qui, comme le requÃ©rant, sont remises en libertÃ© aprÃ©s une pÃ©riode de dÃ©tention rÃ©sultant d'une condamnation en matiÃ©re pÃ©nale .
La requÃªte est donc sous cet angle manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, Â§ 2, de la Convention .
In connection with this matter the applicant further alleges a violation of Article 2, Â§ 2 of Protocol No . 4 which provides that "everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own" . However, paragraph 3 of that Article authorizes restriction on this freedom, "restriction . . . such as are in accordance with law and are necessary in a democratic society . . . for the maintenance of . . . ordre public" . The refusal to release a person lawfully detained with a view to bringing him before the competent legal authority is obviously a lawful restriction within the meaning of the above-cited provision (cf . Decision on Applications No . 3962/69 v/Federal Republic of Germany, Collection 32, p . 68 ; No . 4256/69 v/Federal Republic of Germany, Collection 37, p . 67) . It follows that this part of the application must be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, Â§ 2 of the Convention . The applicant further complains of having been prosecuted and convicted i n the Federal Republic of Germany for certain acts for which he had already been convicted in Belgium . While noting that the applicant was convicted for separate acts in the two countries- fraudulent misappropriation, sale with forged documents-the Commission recalls that the Convention guarantees neither expressly nor by implication the principle of "ne bis in idem" relied upon by the applicant (cf . Decision Application No . 1519/62 v/Austria Collection 10, p . 59) . The complaint is therefore inadmissible as incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, Â§ 2 .
Ã.
Summary of the relevant facts Convicted and sentenced to prison in April 1975 for abductibn of a minor, rhe applicant was re/eased in February 1977, without any resources or employment .
(TRANSLATION ) THE LAW IExtract l The applicant complains that he was released without resources . He appears to allege for this reason a violation of Article 3 of the Convention which forbids inhumain or degrading treatment . This provision can not, however, be interpreted in the present case as obliging the Contracting Parties to take particular economic and social measures in order to ensure a minimum subsistance payment or employment for persons, who, as in the case of the applicant, are released after a period of detention following a criminal conviction . It follows that the application, in this respect, is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 paragraph 2 of the Convention .
- 195 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 16/05/1977Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page