Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19771206-764876
Timestamp: 2017-08-18 01:05:40+00:00
Document Index: 36274564

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 5", "l'article 42", "l'article 42", "l'article 45", "l'article 45", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 42", "l'article 5", 'ATF ', "l'article 5", "l'article 45", "l'article 5", "l'article 45", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 100", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 45", "l'article 5", "l'article 25", "l'article 27", "l'article 42", "l'article 6", "l'article 6", "l'article 27", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 42", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 42", "l'article 45", "l'article 42", "l'article 5", "l'article 45", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 42", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 45", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 27", "l'article 6", 'ATF ']

Type de recours : Partiellement irrecevable ; partiellement recevable
Numéro d'arrêt : 7648/76
Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1977-12-06;7648.76
(Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 9-1) LIBERTE DE RELIGION
Demandeurs : X.
Défendeurs : SUISSE
APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 7648/7 6
X . v/SWITZERLAN D X . c/SUISS E DECISION of 6 December 1977 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 6 dÃ©cembre 1977 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©t e
Article 5, paragraph 1(a) of the Convention : Administrative decision ordering renewed detention for a minimum of 5 years of a convict released on probation . Nature of such decision ? Complaint declared admissibfe . Article 5, paragraph 4, of the Convention : Does a public law appeal to the Swiss Federal Court against a decision to renew the detention of a convict released on probation comply with the requirements of Article 5, paragraph 4? Complaint declared admissible . Articfe 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention : A decision ordering the renewed detention of a convtct released on probation does not concern "the determination of a criminal charge" . Rights not guarenteed : The Convention does not guarantee, as such, the right to have the execution of a sentence suspended.
Article 5, paragraphe 1, lettre ( a) de la Convention : DÃ©cision administrative, pottant rÃ©intÃ©gration pour 5 ans au moins d'un condamnÃ© libÃ©rÃ© conditionnellement . Nature d'une telle dÃ©cision ? Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable . Article 5, paragraphe 4, de la Convention : Le recours de droit administratif au Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral suisse contre la rÃ©intÃ©gration d'un condamnÃ© libÃ©rÃ© conditionnellement rÃ©pond-il aux exigences de l'article 5, paragraphe 4 ? Grief dÃ©clarÃ© recevable . Article 6, paragraphe 1, de la Convention : La dÃ©cision ordonnant la rÃ©intÃ©gration d'un condamnÃ© fibÃ©rÃ© conditionnellement ne porte pas sur K le bien-fondÃ© d'une accusation en matiÃ©re pÃ©nale Â» . Droit non garanti : La Convention ne garantit, comme tel, aucun droit A/a suspension de 1'exÃ©cution d'une peine .
(English : see p
Les faits de la cause peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme sui t Le requÃ©rant, de nationalitÃ© suisse, nÃ© en 1928, a une formation de technicien-radio et a son domicile Ã Lausanne ' 1 . II ressort du dossier que le requÃ©rant a de nombreux antÃ©cÃ©dents judiciaires . Son casier judiciaire fait mention d'une vingtaine de condamnations, se situant entre 1947 et 1974, du chef d'infractions contre le patrimoine . En particulier, par jugements du 3 mars 1960 et du 2 avril 1965, le tribunal correctionnel de Lausanne a ordonnÃ© le renvoi du requÃ©rant dans une maison d'internement pour une durÃ©e indÃ©terminÃ©e conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 42 du Code pÃ©nal suisse . " 2 . Le requÃ©rant est une nouvelle fois condamnÃ© le 14 aoÃ»t 1974 par le tribunal correctionnel de Lausanne du chef de vols par mÃ©tier, dommages Ã la propriÃ©tÃ©, faux, conduite sans permis, perte de maitrise de vÃ©hicule, fuite aprÃ¨s accident et ivresse au volant, Ã une peine de prison ferme d'une durÃ©e d'un an sous dÃ©duction de 63 jours de dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive . Cette peine a Ã©tÃ© absorbÃ©e par l'internement Il ressort de ce jugement que pour fixer la quotitÃ© de la peine, le tribunal a estimÃ© devoir tenir compte de la rÃ©pÃ©tition des infractions dans un court laps de temps et aussi du fait que ces infractions ont Ã©tÃ© commises alors que l'accusÃ© bÃ©nÃ©ficiait d'un congÃ© accordÃ© par l'Ã©tablissement de CrÃ©telongue loÃ¹ il Ã©tait internÃ©l pour les fÃªtes de fin d'annÃ©e Ce tribunal a Ã©galement jugÃ© opportun de prendre en considÃ©ration la responsabilitÃ© lÃ©gÃ©rement restreinte de l'accusÃ© a Etant donnÃ© que l'autoritÃ© administrative sera certainement appelÃ©e Ã prolonger la mesure d'internement prise Ã l'Ã©gard de l'accusÃ© en raison des dÃ©lits faisant l'objet du prÃ©sent jugement, il estime superflu de prononcer une nouvelle mesure d'internement au sens de l'article 42 du Code pÃ©nal . Â» Le requÃ©rant qui, aux termes de ce jugement, aurait dÃ» avoir purgÃ© la peine en juillet 1975, demeure internÃ© . Le 28 aoÃ»t 1975, il bÃ©nÃ©ficie d'une mesure d e
Le requÃ©ranr est reprÃ©sentÃ© devant la commission par Me Jean Lob, avocat Ã Lausenne . Artic/e 42 5 1 : Â« Le juge pourra remplacer l'exÃ©cution d'une peine de . rÃ©clusion ou d'emprisonnement par l'internement si, aprÃ©s avoir dÃ©iÃ© commis de nombreux crimes uu dÃ©lits intentionnels en raison desquels il a Ã©tÃ© privÃ© de libertÃ© pour une durÃ©e globale d'au moins deux ans par des peines de rÃ©clusion ou d'emprisonnement, suit par une mesure d'Ã©ducation au travail ou aprÃ©s avoir dÃ©jÃ Ã©tÃ© internÃ© comme dÃ©linquant d'habitude au lieu de subir des peines privatives de libertÃ©, le dÃ©linquant commet, dans les cinq ans qui suivent sa libÃ©ration dÃ©finitive, un nouveau crime ou dÃ©ll intentionnel qui dÃ©nore sun penchant Ã la dÃ©linquance . n 4 4 : Â« L'internÃ© demeurera dans l'Ã©tablissement pendant une durÃ©e Ã© Gale aux deux tiers de la peine, mais d'au moins trois ans, dÃ©duction faite de la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive imputÃ©e larticle 691 . L'autornÃ© compÃ©tente ordonnera la libÃ©ration condlionnelle pour trois ans au moment oÃ¹ le dÃ©la i minimum fo xÃ© pour cetre libÃ©ration est Ã©coulÃ©, si l'internement ne paral plus nÃ©cessaire ; elle astreindra le libÃ©rÃ© au patronage . En cas de rÃ©intÃ©pration, le n D uvel internement durera en rÃ©ple eÃ©nÃ©rale au moins cinq ans . n
libÃ©rationconditionnelle avec effet au 8 septembre 1975 . Les conditions de cette libÃ©ration sont les suivante s -
dÃ©lai d'Ã©preuve trois ans patronage trois ans ; conduite ne donnant lieu Ã aucune plaint e rÃ©vocation de la libÃ©ration conditionnelle en cas d'inobservation des conditions ci-dessus ou de nouveau dÃ©lit commis durant le dÃ©lai d'Ã©preuve .
3 . Le requÃ©rant est encore arrÃ©tÃ© le 9 octobre 1975 sous l'inculpation de vols par mÃ©tier et placÃ© en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive . Le 25 mars 1976 le tribunal correctionnel du district de Lausanne condamne le requÃ©rant Ã une peine de prison de sept mois sur laquelle a Ã©tÃ© imputÃ©e la pÃ©riode de dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive subie I168 jours : soit 5 mois et 18 joursl . Le requÃ©rant devait Ãªtre Ã©largi le 9 mai 1976 . Or, le 5 mai, le requÃ©rant est informÃ© de la dÃ©cision du Chef du DÃ©partement de la Justice du canton de Vaud, du 4 mai 1976, prononÃ§ant la rÃ©vocation de la libÃ©ration conditionnelle et la rÃ©intÃ©gration du requÃ©rant aux Ets . de la Plaine de l'Orbe, conformÃ©ment Ã la dÃ©cision de la Commission de libÃ©ration du 28 aoÃ»t 1975 sus-mentionnÃ©e et aux dispositions de l'article 45, paragraphe 3 du Code pÃ©nal suisse' . Cette dÃ©cision est intervenue parce que les dÃ©lits, objet du jugement du 25 mars 1976, ont Ã©tÃ© commis pendant le dÃ©lai d'Ã©preuve de trois ans imposÃ© au requÃ©rant par la Commission de libÃ©ration le 28 aotit 1975, c'est-Ã©-dire entre le 15 septembre et le 8 octobre 1975 . Le requÃ©rant attaque cette dÃ©cision au moyen d'un recours de droit administratif auprÃ©s du Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral ICour de cassation pÃ©nalel, qui est rejetÃ© par arrÃªt du 21 mai 1976 . Dans son arrÃªt, la Cour fait valoir que le requÃ©rant n'a pas fait appel du jugement du tribunal correctionnel du 25 mars 1976, que ce jugement a ainsi acquis force de chose jugÃ©e et que dans Â« une telle hypothÃ©se, l'autoritÃ© compÃ©tente n'a pas eu d'autre alternative que d'ordonner la rÃ©intÃ©gration en application de l'article 45, paragraphe 3 qui dispose :'Si le libÃ©rÃ© commet pendant le dÃ©lai d'Ã©preuve un crime ou un dÃ©lit pour lequel il est condamnÃ© sans sursis Ã une peine privative de libertÃ© de plus de trois mois, l'autoritÃ© compÃ©tente proposera au juge l'exÃ©cution des peines suspendues ou ordonnera la rÃ©intÃ©gration' . n GRIEFS Les griefs du requÃ©rant peuvent se rÃ©sumer comme suit : Le requÃ©rant conteste ce qu'il qualifie d'internement administratif pour une durÃ©e indÃ©terminÃ©e . II s'Ã©lÃ©ve contre la dÃ©cision de rÃ©vocation proprement dite, son internement y consÃ©cutif et invoque Ã cet Ã©gard les articles 5 et 6 de la Convention . â¢ Arricle 45, 4 3 : Â« Si le libÃ©r6 commer pendant le dÃ©lai d'Ã©preuve un crime ou un dÃ©lh pour lequel il est condamnÃ© sans aurais Ã une peine privetive de libertÃ© de plus de trois mois, l'autoritÃ© compÃ©tente proposera au juge l'exÃ©cution des peines suspendue9 ou ordonnera la rÃ©intÃ©pration . n
II fait valoir notamment que, libÃ©rÃ© le 8 septembre 1975, il avail purgÃ© Ã cette date plus que le monlant de la peine (12 mois moins 63 jours de dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive) Ã laquelle il avait Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© par jugement du 14 aoÃ»t 1974, qu'on aurait donc dÃ¹ le mettre en libertÃ© dÃ©s le 25 iuillet 1975 . II Ã©tait donc impossible, de l'avis du requÃ©rant, qu'il bÃ©nÃ©ficiÃ¢t le 28 aoÃ¹t 1975 d'une remise de peine partielle . II reconnaÃ®t Ã©tre ce qu'il est convenu d'appeler Â« un dÃ©linquant d'habitude Â» Toutefois, s'il a Ã©tÃ© privÃ© de libertÃ© la majeure partie de sa vie, ce n'est pas en raison des peines auxquelles il a Ã©tÃ© condamnÃ© par des tribunaux 123 mois), mais en raison de Â« l'internement administratif Â» qui lui a Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ© parce qu'il est dÃ©linquant d'habitude ( 115 mois) (artlcle 42 du Code pÃ©nal suisse) .
ARGUMENTATION DES PARTIE S Dans leurs observations Ã©crites sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ¨te, les parties ont prÃ©sentÃ© l'argumentation suivante :
A Quant Ã une Ã©ventuelle violation de l'article 5, paragraphe 1 al de la Conventio n 1 . Selon le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, il y a lieu de distinguer entre dÃ©cision d'internement et exÃ©cution de cette dÃ©cision . a . La dÃ©cision d'internement a Ã©tÃ© prononcÃ©e par un tribunal compÃ©tent, elle est donc conforme aux exigences de l'article 5, paragraphe 1 a) . Dans le cas du requÃ©rant, le tribunal correctionnel de Lausanne a rendu deux dÃ©cisions d'internement, en date du 3 mars 1960 et du 2 avrd 1965 . II s'agit donc bien, contrairement Ã ce que prÃ©tend le requÃ©rant, d'une mesure prise par un tribunal en vertu de l'article 42 du Code pÃ©nal suisse . A cet Ã©gard le Gouvernement renvoie Ã la jurisprudence de la Commission dans laquelle celle-ci a conclu Ã la conformitÃ© avec l'article 5, paragraphe 1 a) de mesures impliquant une dÃ©tention d'une durÃ©e indÃ©terminÃ©e, prononcÃ©es par un tribunal compÃ©tent . b . L'exÃ©cution de l'internemen t L'autoritÃ© cantonale compÃ©tente a l'obligation d'examiner d'office la possibilitÃ© d'ordonner la libÃ©ration conditionnelle . - Elle doit prendre une dÃ©cision au moins une fois par an, pour la premiÃ©re fois aprÃ©s une durÃ©e Ã©gale aux deux tiers de la peine, mais d'au moins trois ans, dÃ©duction laite de la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive imputÃ©e laÂ«icles 45, paragraphe 1, alinÃ©as 1 et 2 et 42, paragraphe 4, alinÃ©a 1 - CPSI . La libÃ©ration conditionnelle est ordonnÃ©e pour trois ans si l'internement ne parait plus nÃ©cessaire . Le libÃ©rÃ© est astreint Ã un patronage larticle 42, paragraphe 4, alinÃ©a 2 CPS1 . - Si le libÃ©rÃ© commet pendant le dÃ©lai d'Ã©preuve un crime ou un dÃ©lit pour lequel il est condamnÃ© sans sursis Ã une peine privative de libertÃ© de plus de troi s
mois, l'autoritÃ© compÃ©tente doit ordonner la rÃ©intÃ©gration (article 45, paragraphe 3 CPS ) . Si le libÃ©rÃ© est condamnÃ© Ã une peine plus douce ou avec sursis, l'autoritÃ© compÃ©tente pourra renoncer Ã ordonner la rÃ©intÃ©gration (article 45, paragraphe 3, alinÃ©a 2 CPS) . L'autoritÃ© compÃ©tente ordonnera Ã©galement la rÃ©intÃ©gration si le libÃ©rÃ©, au mÃ©pris d'un avertissement formel, persiste Ã enfreindre une rÃ©gle de conduite, s'il se soustrait au patronage ou trompe la confiance mise en lui . Dans les cas de peu de gravitÃ©, elle peut renoncer Ã prononcer la rÃ©intÃ©gration (article 45, paragraphe 3, alinÃ©a 3, CPS) . Si le libÃ©rÃ© se conduit bien jusqu'S l'expiration du dÃ©lai d'Ã©preuve, sa libÃ©ration sera dÃ©finitive laÂ«icle 45, paragraphe 4 CPSI . - En cas de rÃ©intÃ©gration, le nouvel internement durera en rÃ¨gle gÃ©nÃ©rale au moins cinq ans (article 42, paragraphe 4, alinÃ©a 3 CPS) . Toutefois, une mesure de libÃ©ration conditionnelle avant ce dÃ©lai est possible, ainsi que l'a jugÃ© le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral (ATF 101 lb 32) . Enfin, la durÃ©e minimum de l'internement n'est pas absolue . Sur proposition de l'autoritÃ© compÃ©tente, le juge peut exceptionnellement mettre fin Ã l'internement avant l'expiration de sa durÃ©e minimum, si celui-ci ne se justifie plus et si les deux tiers de la durÃ©e de la peine sont Ã©coulÃ©s (artlcle 42 . paragraphe 5 CPS) . Selon le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, rien n'empÃªche que l'application des modalitÃ©s d'exÃ©cution d'une privation de libertÃ© (internement) dÃ©cidÃ©e par le pouvoir judiciaire soit confiÃ©e Ã une autoritÃ© administrative au regard de l'article 5, paragraphe 1 a) . Dans le cas particulier, le DÃ©partement de la Justice, de la Police et des Affaires militaires du canton de Vaud, constitue l'autoritÃ© compÃ©tente au sens de l'article 45, paragraphe 3 . En conclusion, la dÃ©cision de l'autoritÃ© administrative ordonnant la rÃ©intÃ©gration n'est pas contraire Ã l'article 5, paragraphe 1 a) . 2 . L'argumentation du conseil du requÃ©rant est la suivant e La thÃ©se du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur est de soutenir que la libÃ©ration conditionnelle entre dans le domaine de l'exÃ©cution des peines et constituent des mesures qui peuvent Ãªtre de la compÃ©tence d'une autoritÃ© administrative . Or, il est superflu de rÃ©pondre Ã cette argumentation car le requÃ©rant se borne Ã s'Ã©lever contre sa rÃ©intÃ©gration . A cet Ã©gard, il soutient que l'article 45 . paragraphe 3 serait compatible avec l'article 5, paragraphe 1 a) de la Convention dans l'hypothÃ©se oÃ¹ il ne confÃ©rerait qu'un pouvoir de prÃ©avis Ã l'autoritÃ© compÃ©tente mais cette disposition du Code pÃ©nal suisse est inconciliable avec cette disposition de la Convention en tant qu'elle lui attribue un pouvoir de dÃ©cision . Le principe Ã©noncÃ© au paragraphe 1 a) de l'article 5 est fondamental et ne peut Ãªtre interprÃ©tÃ© de faÃ§on restrictive . C'est au juge seul qu'il appartient de rechercher si les conditions d'une rÃ©intÃ©gration ou d'une nouvelle dÃ©tention sont rÃ©alisÃ©es
Souscrire Ã la thÃ©se du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur est dangereux en ce sens que cela pourrait conduire Ã rÃ©duire considÃ©rablement la garantie du Â« juge Â» et Ã Ã©tendre de faÃ§on excessive l'arbitraire de l'administration . Il suffirait que les tribunaux en viennent Ã dÃ©cider systÃ©matiquement que tout dÃ©linquant n'est laissÃ© ou remis en libertÃ© qu'Ã la condition de ne pas commettre de nouveau dÃ©lit, l'autoritÃ© administrative Ã©tant dÃ©clarÃ©e compÃ©tente pour statuer sur la rÃ©alisation ou la non-rÃ©alisation de cette condition . On arriverait ainsi Ã Ã©luder l'article 5 de la Convention . Il faut au contraire poser le principe que toute personne qui se trouve en libertÃ©, fÃ¹t-elle conditionnelle, ne peut Ãªtre dÃ©tenue ou rÃ©intÃ©grÃ©e qu'aprÃ¨s condamnation par un trlbunal compÃ©tent . Les juges qui ont eu Ã connaitre des nouvelles infractions du requÃ©rant auraient pu ordonner son internement, mais prÃ©cisÃ©ment ils ne l'ont pas fait . DÃ¨s lors, l'autoritÃ© administrative compÃ©tente ne pouvait priver le requÃ©rant de sa libertÃ©, elle ne pouvait que proposer au juge de le rÃ©intÃ©grer . B Quant Ã une Ã©ventuelle violation de l'article 5, paragraphe 4 de la Conventio n 1 . Sur le plan de l'application de l'article 5, paragraphe 4, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur fait rÃ©fÃ©rence Ã l'arrÃªt de la Cour eur D .H . dans les affaires de vagabondage oÃ¹ celle-ci a constatÃ© qu'un recours auprÃ¨s d'un tribunal doit Ãªtre ouvert lorsque la dÃ©cision privative de libertÃ© Ã©mane d'un organe administratif . Il soutient Ã cet Ã©gard que rien n'indique qu'il en va de mÃªme quand cette dÃ©cision a Ã©tÃ© rendue par un tribunal statuant Ã l'issue d'une procÃ©dure judiciaire . Dans cette hypothÃ©se, le contrÃ´le voulu par l'article 5, paragraphe 4 se trouve incorporÃ© Ã la dÃ©cision . Le Gouvernement conclut donc Ã l'inapplicabilitÃ© de l'article 5, paragraphe 4 . Dans l'hypothÃ©se oÃ¹ la Commission serait de l'avis que la garantie prÃ©vue Ã l'article 5, paragraphe 4 s'applique Ã la procÃ©dure d'exÃ©cution de l'internement et, plus particuliÃ©rement, Ã la dÃ©cision ordonnant la rÃ©intÃ©gration dans une maison d'internement, le Gouvernement considÃ©re que le droit interne est conforme Ã cette dispositio n En effet, la voie du recours de droit administratif au Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral est ouverte larticle 98 gl, combinÃ© avec l'article 100 fl a contrario de la loi fÃ©dÃ©rale d'organisation judiciaire du 16 dÃ©cembre 1943) . Dans le cas particulier, la dÃ©cision attaquÃ©e date du 4 mai 1976 et le 21 mai le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral prenait une dÃ©cision sur le recours formulÃ© le 11 mai 1976 . Il y a eu communication au requÃ©rant des motifs le 3 juin 1976 . Le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral a donc Â« statuÃ© Ã bref dÃ©lai Â» au sens de l'article 5, paragraphe 4 Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur considÃ©re donc que la requÃªte est dÃ©nuÃ©e de fondement tant par rapport Ã l'article 5, paragraphe 1 a) que par rapport Ã l'article 5 . paragraphe 4 .
Pour conclure, le Gouvernement ajoute que si la Commission devait dÃ©clarer la requÃªte recevable en tout ou en partie, il se rÃ©serve la possibilitÃ© de faire valoir d'autres arguments . 2 . Le conseil du requÃ©rant soutient pour sa part que la procÃ©dure de recours devant le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral ne rÃ©pond pas Ã la procÃ©dure prÃ©vue Ã l'article 5, paragraphe 4 . Le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral s'est, eh effet, bornÃ© Ã entÃ©riner la compÃ©tence de l'autoritÃ© administrative .
EN DROI T 1 . Le requÃ©rant se plaint de la dÃ©cision dont il a fait l'objet de la pan du Chef du DÃ©partement de la Justice du canton de Vaud, en date du 4 mai 1976, portant rÃ©vocation de la libÃ©ration conditionnelle dont il bÃ©nÃ©ficiait et sa rÃ©intÃ©gration dans une maison d'internement, en venu des dispositions de l'article 45, paragraphe 3 nouveau du Code pÃ©nal suisse . Il allÃ©gue Ã cet Ã©gard la violation des articles 5 et 6 de la Convention . En particulier, il estime que l'internement pour une durÃ©e indÃ©terminÃ©e, consÃ©cutif Ã la dÃ©cision de rÃ©vocation de la libÃ©ration conditionnelle, constitue une privation de libertÃ© que rien ne justifie au regard de l'article 5, lequel garantit Ã toute personne le droit Ã la libenÃ© et Ã la sOretÃ© . 2 . Dans la mesure oÃ¹ le requÃ©rant se plaint de la dÃ©cision portant rÃ©vocation de la libÃ©ration conditionnelle, il y a lieu de relever qu'aux termes de l'article 25, paragraphe 1, de la Convention, seule la violation allÃ©guÃ©e d'un des droits et libertÃ©s reconnus dans la Convention peut faire l'objet d'une requÃ©te formulÃ©e par une personne physique, une organisation non gouvernementale ou un groupe de particuliers . Or, parmi les droits et libertÃ©s garantis par la Convention ni le droit Ã la suspension Ã l'essai de l'exÃ©cution d'une peine infligÃ©e par un tribunal en matiÃ¨re pÃ©nale ni le droit de continuer de bÃ©nÃ©ficier d'une telle suspension dÃ©jÃ accordÃ©e, ne figurent parmi les droits et libertÃ©s garantis par la Convention, ainsi d'ailleurs que la Commission l'a constatÃ© notamment dans sa dÃ©cision antÃ©rieure sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte NÂ° 2438/65, Rec . 25, p . 1 1111 . Il s'ensuit que ce grief est incompatible ratione materiae avec les dispositions de la Convention, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 . 3 . En ce qui concerne l'allÃ©gation du requÃ©rant selon laquelle la dÃ©cision ordonnant sa rÃ©intÃ©gration dans un Ã©tablissement prÃ©vu Ã l'article 42 du Code pÃ©nal suisse serait contraire aux prescriptions de l'article 6, la Commission fait remarquer qu'en l'occurrence cette disposition n'est pas d'application car la dÃ©cision mise en cause n'est pas une dÃ©cision sur le Â« bien-fondÃ© d'une accusation en matiÃ©re pÃ©nale Â» au sens de l'article 6, paragraphe 1 . Il s'ensuit que ce,grief doit Ã©galement Ã©tre rejetÃ© comme Ã©tant incompatible ratione materiae avec les dispositions de la Convention au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 .
4 . Le requÃ©rant s'Ã©lÃ©ve en outre et essentiellement contre son internement, qu'il qualifie e d'internement administratif n, pour une durÃ©e indÃ©terminÃ©e et qui est la consÃ©quence de la dÃ©cision de rÃ©vocation de la libÃ©ration conditionnelle dont il bÃ©nÃ©ticiait . Aux termes de l'article 5, paragraphe 1 a Nul ne peut Ã©tre privÃ© de sa libertÃ©, sauf dans les cas suivants et selon les voies lÃ©gales a . s'il est dÃ©tenu rÃ©guliÃ©rement aprÃ©s condamnation par un tribunal compÃ©tent n ; ....... 5 . La Commission constate que l'article 5, paragraphe 1 est d'application dans le cas d'espÃ¨ce . L'internement du requÃ©rant constituait en effet une privation de libertÃ© en ce sens que le requÃ©rant Ã©tait placÃ© contre son grÃ© dans un Ã©tablissenient prÃ©vu Ã l'article 42 du Code pÃ©nal suisse . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur ne conteste pas l'applicabilitÃ© de l'article 5 mais il estime que cetle privation de libertÃ© est conforme Ã l'article 5, paragraphe 1 a) Il fait valoir que la dÃ©cision d'internement est prononcÃ©e par un a tribunal compÃ©tent Â» .
En effet, l'internement d'un individu dans un Ã©tablissement comme en l'espÃ©ce est prÃ©vu Ã l'article 42 du Code pÃ©nal suisse . Il s'agit d'une mesure qui est appliquÃ©e en tant que mesure de sOretÃ© Ã des personnes pour lesquelles on note un penchant pour la dÃ©linquance L'internement constitue donc le substitut d'une peine et est prononcÃ© par la juridictlon pÃ©nale de iugement Ã la suite d'un procÃ©s en bonne et due forme (article 42, paragraphe 1, du Code pÃ©nal suisse) Cet internement est prononcÃ© pour une durÃ©e indÃ©terminÃ©e . Une fois la dÃ©cision judiciaire d'internement prise, l'autoritÃ© judiciaire n'intervient pratiquement plus, sauf en cas de libÃ©ration conditionnelle pendant les trois premiÃ©res annÃ©es de l'internement larticle 42, paragraphe 5, du Code pÃ©nal suissel AprÃ©s trois ans d'internement, seule a l'autoritÃ© compÃ©tente n peut dÃ©cider de l'opportunitÃ© d'une mesure de libÃ©ration conditionnelle (articles 42, paragraphe 4 et 45, paragraphe 1 du Code pÃ©nal suisse), de la rÃ©vocation de celle-ci et de la rÃ©intÃ©gration de l'intÃ©ressÃ© dans un Ã©tablissement (article 45, paragraphe 3, du Code pÃ©nal suisse) . Dans le canton de Vaud l'autoritÃ© compÃ©tente est une autoritÃ© administrative : Le DÃ©partement de la Justice, de la Police et des Affaires militaires (article 42 de la Loi du 18 septembre 1973 du canton de Vaud sur l'exÃ©cution des condamnations pÃ©nales et de la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive et article 5 de la Loi du 26 novembre 1973 du canton de Vaud d'application du Code pÃ©nal suisse) . Dans cette derniÃ©re hypothÃ©se, Ã savoir la rÃ©intÃ©gration, l'autoritÃ© administrative intervient obligatoirement lorsque les conditions Ã©noncÃ©es au paragraphe 3 de l'article 45 du Code pÃ©nal suisse sont rÃ©unies . L'internement demeure d'une durÃ©e indÃ©terminÃ©e et aux termes de l'article 42, paragraphe 4, u il durera en rÃ©gle gÃ©nÃ©rale au moins cinq ans e .
Selon le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, rien n'empÃ©che que l'application des Â« modalitÃ©s d'exÃ©cution Â» d'une privation de libertÃ© dÃ©cidÃ©e par le pouvoir judiciaire soit confiÃ©e Ã une autoritÃ© administrative au regard de l'article 5, paragraphe 1 al . Cette argumentation est contestÃ©e par le requÃ©rant qui soutient qu'il faut poser le principe que toute personne qui se trouve en libertÃ©, fÃ»t-elle conditionnelle, ne peut Ãªtre dÃ©tenue ou rÃ©intÃ©grÃ©e qu'aprÃ©s condamnation par un tribunal compÃ©tent . Les juges qui ont eu Ã connaitre des nouvelles infractions du requÃ©rant auraient pu ordonner son internement, mais prÃ©cisÃ©ment ils ne l'ont pas fait . DÃ¨s lors, l'autoritÃ© administrative ne pouvait priver le requÃ©rant de sa libertÃ©, elle ne pouvait que proposer au juge de le rÃ©intÃ©gre r En effet, l'article 45, paragraphe 3 serait compatible avec l'article 5, paragraphe 1 a) s'il se bornait Ã ne confÃ©rer qu'un pouvoir de Â« prÃ©avis Â» Ã l'autoritÃ© administrative mais cette disposition du Code pÃ©nal suisse est inconciliable avec ladite disposition de la Convention parce qu'elle lui attribue un pouvoir de dÃ©cisio n 6 . La Commission considÃ¨re que la procÃ©dure dont le requÃ©rant a fait l'objet est en conformitÃ© avec les dispositions lÃ©gales en vigueur en Suisse . Il lui appartient toutefois d'examiner si la mesure dont se plaint le requÃ©rant rÃ©pond aux exigences de l'article 5, paragraphe 1 a) . Certes, la dÃ©cision judiciaire d'internement rendue le 2 avril 1965 est prononcÃ©e, ainsi qu'on vient de le voir, par un Â« tribunal Â» dans le cadre d'une procÃ©dure judiciaire et ce pour une durÃ©e indÃ©terminÃ©e (article 42 du Code pÃ©nal suisse) . Toutefois, les dÃ©cisions ultÃ©rieures concernant l'internement IlibÃ©ration conditionnelle, rÃ©intÃ©grationl sont du ressort exclusif de l'autoritÃ© administrative cantonale, sauf le cas de libÃ©ration conditionnelle pendant les trois premiÃ¨res annÃ©es de l'internement (article 42, paragraphe 5 du Code pÃ©nal suissel . Par consÃ©quent, la rÃ©intÃ©gration, telle que dans le cas prÃ©sent, a Ã©tÃ© ordonnÃ©e par l'autoritÃ© administrative cantonale qui est, en l'espÃ©ce, le DÃ©partement de la Justice, de la Police et des Affaires militaires du canton de Vaud . Cette rÃ©intÃ©gration sera, aux termes de l'article 42, paragraphe 4, du Code pÃ©nal suisse, d'au moins cinq an s La Commission a Ã©tÃ© amenÃ©e Ã diverses reprises Ã Ã©tudier la question de savoir si des mesures similaires Ã celles dont se plaint le requÃ©rant impliquant une dÃ©tention d'une durÃ©e indÃ©terminÃ©e sont contraires Ã l'article 5, paragraphe 1 al . Lors de l'examen de certaines requÃªtes dirigÃ©es contre la RÃ©publique FÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne - en ce qui concerne la Â« Sicherungsverwahrung Â» voir par exemple la requÃªte NÂ° 99/55, Ann . 1, p . 160, et la requÃ©te NÂ° 138/55, Ann 1, p . 234 et contre le Danemark IrequÃ¨te NÂ° 2518/65, Ann . 8, pp . 371/375), la Commission est parvenue Ã la conclusion que ces mesures rÃ©pondent aux exigences d e
l'article 5, paragraphe 1 al parce qu'elles Ã©taient prononcÃ©es par une autorrte judiciaire . Dans le cas du requÃ©rant, les deux seules dÃ©cisions d'internement prononcÃ©es par le tribunal correctionnel de Lausanne se situent en date du 3 mars 1960 et du 2 avril 1965 . Dans les deux cas, la peine a Ã©tÃ© remplacÃ©e par le renvoi dans une malson d'internement pour une durÃ©e indÃ©terminÃ©e, mais toutes les pÃ©riodes d'internement subsÃ©quentes, notamment celle mise en cause, dÃ©cidÃ©es par suite de nouvelles condamnations du requÃ©rant par des tribunaux compÃ©tents, ont Ã©tÃ© ordonnÃ©es par l'autoritÃ© administrative en vertu de l'article 45, paragraphe 3, du Code pÃ©nal suisse . La Commission estime, Ã la lumiÃ©re d'un examen prÃ©liminaire de l'argumentation des parties, que les problÃ¨mes soulevÃ©s par les griefs du requÃ©rant sous l'angle de l'article 5, paragraphe 1 a), notamment quant Ã la nature de la dÃ©cision qui a ordonnÃ© sa rÃ©intÃ©gration, prÃ©sentent des aspects d'une complexitÃ© telle qu'il ne saurait Ã¨tre statuÃ© Ã leur sujet qu'aprÃ¨s examen au fond . 7 . La Commission a relevÃ© d'office la question de l'applicabilitÃ© de l'article 5, paragraphe 4 de la Convention . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur soutient la thÃ¨se selon laquelle le contrÃ´le de l'article 5, paragraphe 4 est incorporÃ© Ã la dÃ©cision d'internement prononcÃ©e Ã l'origine par l'organe judiciaire et que l'article 5, paragraphe 4 est donc inapplicable Il est fait rÃ©fÃ©rence Ã cet Ã©gard Ã l'ArrÃªt de la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme relatif aux Â« Affaires de vagabondage Â» oÃ¹ celle-ci a constatÃ© qu'un recours auprÃ¨s d'un tribunal doit Ã©tre ouvert lorsque la dÃ©cision privative de libertÃ© Ã©mane d'un organe administrati f Le requÃ©rant soutient pour sa part que la procÃ©dure de recours devant le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral ne rÃ©pond pas Ã la procÃ©dure prÃ©vue Ã l'article 5, paragraphe 4 . Le Tribunal fÃ©dÃ©ral n'a pas statuÃ© sur la lÃ©galitÃ© de la dÃ©tention . Il s'est en effet bornÃ© Ã entÃ©riner la compÃ©tence de l'autoritÃ© administrativ e La Commission considÃ©re que sur ce point Ã©galement on se trouve en prÃ©sence de problÃ©mes complexes qui ne sauraient Ã¨tre rÃ©solus que dans le cadre d'une procÃ©dure au fond . La Commission est donc d'avis que la requÃ©te ne peut Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2 de la Convention et qu'elle doit @tre dÃ©clarÃ©e recevabl e Par ces motifs, la Commissio n - DÃ©clare irrecevables le grief du requÃ©rant ayant trait Ã la dÃ©cision portant rÃ©vocation de la libertÃ© conditionnelle et le grief selon lequel la dÃ©cision ordonnant la rÃ©intÃ©gration du requÃ©rant serait contraire aux prescriptions de l'article 6 de la Conventio n - Pour le surplus, dÃ©clare la requÃ©te recevable, tout moyen de fond Ã©tant rÃ©servÃ© .
-1g4_
(TRANSLATION ) THE FACT S The facts of the case may be summarised as follow s The applicant, born in 1928, of Swiss nationality, was trained as a radio mechanic and resides in Lausanne . ' 1 . The case-file discloses that the applicant has previously been involved in numerous legal proceedings . His criminal record mentions approximately 20 convictions in the period between 1947 and 1974 on charges of offences against propert y In particular, the Lausanne Criminal Court sentenced the applicant, in its judgments of 3 March 1960 and 2 April 1965, to be sent to a detention centre for an indeterminate period, in accordance with Article 42 of the Swiss Penal Code ." 2 . The applicant was again convicted on 14 August 1974 by the Lausanne Criminal Court on counts of compulsive theft, damage to property, forgery, driving without a licence, loss of control of vehicles, failure to stop after an accident, drunken driving, and was sentenced to one year's imprisonment without remission, less 63 days spent on remand . This sentence was absorbed by the period of detention . It is apparent from the judgment that in fixing the length of the sentence, the court felt obliged to take into account the repetition of offences within a short space of time and also the fact that the offences were committed while the accused was on leave granted by the CrOtelongue Institution Iwhere he was detained) for the Christmas and New Year holiday period . The court also felt it advisable to take into consideration slightly diminished responsibility of the accused . It concluded, "Seeing that the administrative authority will certainly have to prolong the detenlion of the accused on account of the offences with which this judgment is concerned, it is felt to be unnecessary to issue a further order for detention under Article 42 of the Penal Code" . Although under the terms of his judgment the applicant should have completed his sentence in July 1975, he remained in detention . On 28 August 1975 ' The applicam is reprea6nted before the CommieaÃon by Me Jean Lob, a barrister practising in Lausenne .
" Artic/e 42, para. I :"Instead of enforcing a sentence of penal servitude or imprisonment, the coun may substitute detention if the offender, having already willully committed a number of crimes or correctional offences for which he has been deprived of his freedom for a total duration of at least 2 years, in the form either of sentences of penal servitude or imprisonment or of en order for education for work or having already been detained as e habitual offender in lieu of sentences involving deprivation of freedom, wilfully commits within 5 years of his final release e now crime or correctional offence indic9linp a criminal propensity . " Artic/e 42, para . 4 : "The detainee shall remain in the establishment for a period equivalent to two thirds of the sentence, but not less then 3 years after deduction of the period snent in remand lArticle 691 . Once the minimum period stipulated for such releaae has elapsed, the compatent euthority shall order conditional release for 3 yeam, it detention no lonper appears necessary, or shall require the released person to remain under suparvision IpatronaGel . In case of return to detention the new period shall as a rule last at least 5 years."
he was granted conditional release with effect from 8 September 1975 . The conditions governing this release were as follow s - a probationary period of 3 years - supervision for 3 years ;
- conduct giving no cause for complain t - revocation of release in case of failure to comply with the above condition s or of any offence committed during the probationary period . 3 . The applicant was arrested again on 9 December 1975 on a charge of compulsive theft and remanded in custody On 25 March 1976 the Lausanne District Criminal Court sentenced hlm to 7 months' imprisonment, from which the period of remand was deducted 1168 days, ie 5 months and 18 days) . The applicant was due to be released on 9 May 1976 On 5 May . however, he was informed of a decision of 4 May 1976 by Head of the Department of Justice of the canton of Vaud revoking the declsion of conditional release and ordering his return to the Plaine de l'Orbe Institution, in accordance with the decision by the Release Board of 28 August 1975 mentioned above and the provisions of Article 45, paragraph 3 of the Swiss Penal Code . ' This decision was taken because 1he offences with which the judgment of 25 March 1976 was concerned had been committed during the 3-year probation period imposed on the applicant by the Release Board on 28 August 1975, namely between 15 September and 8 October 1975 . The applicant challenged this decision by way of an administrative law appeal to the Federal Court (Supreme Court of Criminal Appeal) . In rejecting this appeal in a judgment of 21 May 1976, the Court argued that the applicant had not appealed against the judgment of 25 March 1976 by the Criminal Court that that judgment had thus acquired the force of res judicata and that "this being so, the competent authority had no alternative but to order renewed detention in pursuance of Article 45, paragraph 3, which stipulates, 'If during the probationary period the released prisoner commits a crime or correctional offence for which he is sentenced to deprivation of liberty more than 3 months, without suspension of the sentence, the competent authority shall propose to the court that previous suspended sentences should be enforced, or shall order the offender to be returned to detention . "
COMPLAINT S The applicant's complaints may be summarised as follows : The applicant challenges what he describes as administrative detention for an indefinite period . He protests against the revocation order as such and his consequent dete ntion, as being in breach of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention . ' Anic/e 45, para . 3 : "If during the proba t ionarv period the released prisoner commits a crime or correctional offence for which he is sentenced to deprivation of libeny lor more than 3 months, without suspension ol the sentence, the competent authority shall propose to the court that previous suspended sentences should be enlorced or shall order the offender to be returned to detention" .
He argues, in particular that, when released on 8 September 1975, he had already served more than the period (12 months minus 63 days' remandl to which he had been sentenced by the judgment of 14 August 1974, and that he ought therefore to have been set free on 25 July 1975 . It was therefore impossible, in his opinion, that he should on 28 August 1975 benefit from partial remission of sentence . He acknowledges being what is customarily known as "a habitual offender" . Nevertheless, the fact that he has been imprisoned for the greater part of his life, is due not to the sentences passed on him by the courts (23 months) but to the "administrative detention" to which he has been subjected as a habitual offender (115 months) (Article 42 of the Swiss Penal Codel .
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S In their written observations on the admissibility of the application, the parties submitted the following arguments A . As to Article 5, paragraph 1 lal of the Conventio n 1 . According to the respondent Government, a distinction should be drawn between a detention order and its enforcement . a . The detention order was issued by a competent court, and is thus in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 1 la t The Lausanne Criminal Court issued two detention orders in the applicant's case, on 3 March 1960 and 2 April 1965 . Contrary to what the applicant claims, the measure was thus in fact ordered by a court in pursuance of Article 42 of the Swiss Penal Code . In this respect, the Government refers to the Commission's case-law to the effect that measures taken by a competent court involving detention for an indefinite period are in accordance with Article 5, paragraph 1 lal . b . Enforcement of the detention orde r The competent cantonal authority is required to consider proprio motu the possibility of ordering conditional release . - It must take a decision after expiry of a period equivalent to two-thirds of the sentence, but not less than 3 years after deduction of the period spent in remand, and at least once a year thereafter (Articles 45, paragraph 1, subparagraphs 1 and 2, and 42, paragraph 4, sub-paragraph 1 of the Penal Codel . Conditional release is granted for 3 years if detention no longer appears necessary . The released detainee must remain under supervision (Article 42, paragraph 4, sub-paragraph 2 of the Penal Code) . - If, during the probationary period, he commits a crime or correctional offence for which he is sentenced to deprivation of liberty for more than 3 months, without suspension of sentences, the competent authority must order his retur n
to detention (Article 45, paragraph 3 of the Penal Codel . It he is sentenced to a milder penalty, or if execution of the sentence is suspended, the competent authority may refrain trom returning him to detention IArticle 45, paragraph 3, sub-paragraph 2 of the Penal Code) . The competent authority shall also order his return to detention if, in defiance of a formal warning, he persists in breach i ng a rule of conduct, evades supervision or betrays the trust placed in him . In less serious cases, it may refrain from returning him to detention (Article 45, paragraph 3, sub-paragraph 3 of the Penal Code) . It his conduct is good until the probationary period expires, his release will become final IArticle 45, paragraph 4 of the Penal Codel . - If a released prisoner is returned to detention, the new period of detention will as a rule last for at least 5 years IArtlcle 42, paragraph 2, subparagraph 3 of the Penal Code) . Nevertheless, the Federal Court has ruled that conditional release may be granted before the end of this period (ATF 101 lb 32) . Finally, the minimum period of detention is not an absolute one At the proposal of the competent authority, the court may exceptionally terminate detention before expiry of the minimum period, if it is no longer justified and if two thirds of its duration have elapsed IArticle 42, paragraph 5 of the Penal Codel . According to the respondent Government, there is nothing in Article 5, paragraph 1 lal to prevent an administrative authority from being made responsible for implementing the conditions of dep rivation of liberty Idetentionl decided by the judicial authorities . In the case in point, the Department of Justice, Police and Military Affairs of the Canton of Vaud is the competent authority within the meaning of Article 45, paragraph 3 . In conclusion, the decision by the administrative authority to renew detention is not contrary to Article 5, paragraph 1 lal . 2 . The submission of applicant's counsel is as follows : The respondent Government maintains that conditional release is a matter concerning the enforcement of sentences and, as such, may fall within the competence of an administrative authority . It is unnecessary to reply to this argument, however, as the applicant is merely challenging his return to detention . He submits that Article 45, paragraph 3, of the Swiss Penal Code would be compatible with Article 5, paragraph 1 (a) of the Convention if it merely attributed advisory powers to the competent authority ; but It conflicts with Article 5, paragraph 1 lal in that it also assigns powers of decision to that authority . The principle embodied in Article 5, paragraph 1 lal is fundamental and cannot be interpreted restrictively . It is for the court alone to investigate whether the circumstances justify a return to detention or a further period of imprisonment .
_1gg_
It would be dangerous to accept the respondent Government's argument, as this might lead to a considerable reduction in the judicial safeguard and to an excessive extension of arbitrary administrative powers . It would suffice for the courts to decide systematically that the offender should only be left at liberty or released on condition that he did not commit a new offence, the administrative authority being declared competent to decide whether or not this condition had been met ; in this way, Article 5 of the Convention could be circumvented . Instead the principle should be established that no individual at liberty, even under conditional release, may be imprisoned or returned to detention except after being sentenced by a competent court . The courts that had to try the applicant regarding the new offences could have ordered his detention, but they did not do so . The competent administrative authority could therefore not deprive the applicant of his liberty but could merely propose to the court that he should be returned to detention .
B . As to Article 5, paragraph 4 of the Conventio n 1 . To the question whether Article 5, paragraph 4 applies, the respondent Government reters to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Vagrancy cases, which found that an appeal to a court should be available when a decision involving deprivation of libeny was taken by an administrative body . The Government argues in this connection thai there is no reason to believe that the same should apply when the decision has been taken by a court at the end of judicial proceedings . In such cases the review provided for in Article 5, paragraph 4 is inherent in that decision . The Government therefore concludes that Article 5, paragraph 4 does not apply .
In the event of the Commission's taking the view that the safeguard provided in Article 5, paragraph 4 applies to the procedure for enforcing detention and, more particularly, to a decision ordering return to the detention centre, the Government submits that domestic law meets this requirement, considering that an administrative appeal to the Federal Court is possible IArticle 98 Igl in conjunction with Article 100 Ifl, a contrario, of the Federal Judiciary Act of 16 December 1943 ) In the case under consideration, the contested decision dates from 4 May 1976, on 21 May the Federal Court took a decision on the appeal lodged on 11 May . The applicant was informed of the grounds for the decision on 3 June 1976 . The Federal Court therefore "decided speedily" within the meaning ot Article 5, paragraph 4 . The respondent Government therefore considers that the application is ill-founded with regard both to Article 5, paragraph 11 (a) and to Article 5, paragraph 4 . In conclusion the Government adds that, should the Commission declare the application admissible in whole or in part, it reserves the right to submit other arguments .
2 . The applicant's counsel maintains, for his part, that the appeal procedure before the Federal Court does not correspond to the procedure provided under Article 5, paragraph 4, the Federal Court having merely confirmed the competence of the administrative authority .
THE LAW 1 . The applicant complains of the decision taken by the Head of the Department of Justice of the Canton of Vaud on 4 May 1976 revoking his conditional release and ordering his return to a detention centre, in application of Article 45, paragraph 3 Irevisedl of the Swiss Penal Code . He alleges that this constitutes a violation of Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention . In particular he considers that detention for an indeterminate period, which followed the decision to revoke his conditional release . constitutes a deprivation of liberty for which there is no justification in Article 5, which provides that everyone has the right to liberty and security of person .
2 . In so far as the applicant's complaint concerns the decision rescinding his conditional release, it should be noted that under Article 25, paragraph 1 of the Convention only an alleged violation of one of the rights and freedoms set forth in the Convention niay be the sublect of an application by a person, nongovernmental organisation or group of individuals But the rights and freedoms safeguarded by the Convention do not include either the right to have a penalty imposed by a court in criminal proceedings suspended for a probation period or the right to continue to enjoy a suspension previously granted as moreover has already been found by the Commission, for example in its previous decision on the admissibility of application NÂ° 2438/65, Collection of Decisions 25, p . 1 1111 . II follows Ihat this complainl Is incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27 . paragraph 2 . 3 . Regarding the applicant's allegation that the decision ordering his return to a detention centre as provided under Article 42 of the Swiss Penal Code conflicts with Article 6, the Commission observes that this provision is not applicable to the present cas, for the decision challenged is not a decision on "the determination of any criminal charge" within the meaning of Article 6, paragraph 1 . It follows that this complaint should also be rejected as incompatible ratione materiae with the Convention within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph 2 4 . In addition, and above all, the applicant protests against his detention, which he describes as "administrative detention" for an indefinite period consequent upon the decision to revoke his conditional releas e Article 5, paragraph 1 provides that " . . no one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law :
a . the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court . . . " 5 . The Commission finds Article 5, paragraph 1 to be applicable to the case under consideration . The applicant's detention did in fact constitute deprivation of liberty in the sense that he was placed against his will in an institution as provided for in Article 42 of the Swiss Penal Code . The respondent Government does not contest the applicability of Article 5, but considers that such deprivation of liberty complies with Article 5, paragraph 1 (a) . It submits that the decision to impose detention was taken by a"competent court" . The detention of an individual in an institution as in the case under consideration is indeed provided for in Article 42 of the Swiss Penal Code . It is a measure applied for reasons of security in the case of persons who have been observed to have criminal tendencies . Such detention is therefore a substitute for a penalty and is ordered by the criminal court following a properly conducted trial fArticle 42, paragraph 1 of the Penal Code) . It is imposed for an indefinite period . Once the court has taken its decision regarding detention, the judicial authorities are hardly involved any further, except in cases of conditional release during the first three years of detention (Article 42, paragraph 5 of the Swiss Penal Code) . After detention for three years, the "competent authority" alone may decide on the expediency of granting conditional release (Articles 42, paragraph 4 and 45, paragraph 1 of the Penal Code) or revoking it and returning the person concerned to a detention centre (Article 45, paragraph 3 of the Penal Codel . In the Canton of Vaud, the competent authority is an administrative body, the Department of Justice, Police and Military Affairs (Article 42 of the Act of 18 September 1973 of the Canton of Vaud on the enforcement of penal sentences and remand and Article 5 of the Canton's Act of 26 November 1973 in implementation of the Swiss Penal Code) . In this last-mentioned case, namely return to detention, the administrative authority must take action when the conditions set out in Article 45, paragraph 3, of the Swiss Penal Code are met . Detention continues to be for an indefinite period, and Article 42, paragraph 4, provides that "it shall as a general rule last for at least five years" . According to the respondent Government, there is nothing in Article 5, paragraph 1 (a) to prevent an administrative authority being made responsible for the procedural implementation of deprivation of liberty decided by the judicial power . This reasoning is challenged by the applicant, who submits that, as a matter of principle, no one at liberty, even on conditional release, can be imprisoned or returned to detention except after conviction by a competent court . The courts that have tried the applicant's new offences could have ordered his detention, but they refrained from doing so . Hence, the administrative
authority had no power to deprive him of his liberty, but merely to propose to the court that he should be returned to detentio n Article 45, paragraph 3 of the Swiss Penal Code would in fact be compatible with Article 5, paragraph 1(a) of the Convention if it merely assigned advisory powers to the administrative authority : but it conflicts with Article 5, paragraph 1 (a) in that it attributes powers of decision . The Commission considers that the procedure applied in the applicam's case 6 is in conformity with the legal provisions in force in Switzerland . It has nevertheless to examine whether the measure the applicant complains of meets the requirements of Article 5, paragraph 1 la l Admittedly, the judicial detention order of 2 April 1965 was made, as we have seen, by a "court" as pan of judicial proceedings, and covered an indefinite period (Article 42 of the Swiss Penal Code) . However, subsequent decisions relating to detention Iconditional release, return to detentionl are entirely a matter for the cantonal administrative authority . with the exception of conditional release during the first three years of detention (Article 42, paragraph 5 of the Swiss Penal Code) . Consequently, the return to detention, as in the present case, was ordered by that administrative authority, in this instance, the Department of Justice, Police and Military Affairs of the Canton of Vaud . Under Article 42, paragraph 4 of the Swiss Penal Code detention after such recall must last at least five years . The Commission has frequently had to consider whether measures similar to those complained of by the applicant, involving detention for an indefinite period, conflict with Article 5, paragraph 1(a) . When examining certain applications against the Federal Republic of Germany-in the case of "Sicherungsverwahrung", see for example application No . 99/55, Yearbook 1, page 160, and application No . 138/55, Yearbook 1, page 234-and against Denmark (Application No . 2518/65, Yearbook 8, pp . 370/374), the Commission reached the conclusion that such measures satisfied the requirements of Article 5, pagaraph 1(a) because they were ordered by a judicial authority . In the case of the present applicant, the only two decisions on detention taken by the Lausanne Criminal Court date from 3 March 1960 and 2 April 1965 . In both cases confinement in a detention centre for an indefinite period was substituted for the sentence, but all subsequent periods of detention, in particular the one challenged were ordered by the administrative authority under Article 45, paragraph 3 of the Swiss Penal Code as a result of new convictions against the applicant on the part of competent courts . After a preliminary examination of the submissions of the parties, the Commission considers that the problems raised by the applicant's complaints pertaining to Article 5, paragraph 1 (a), particularly with regard to the nature of the decision ordering his return to detention, are so complex that no decision can be reached on them without an examination of the merits .
7 . The Commission has, ex officio, raised the question of the relevance of Article 5, paragraph 4 of the Convention . The respondent Government argues that the review required by Article 5, paragraph 4 is inherent in the detention order originally issued by the judicial body and that Article 5, paragraph 4 does not therefore apply . Reference is made in this respect to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the "Vagrancy Cases", where it was found that an appeal to a court should be available when a decision involving deprivation of liberty was taken by an administrative body . For his part, the applicant submits that the appeal procedure before the Federal Court is not in line with the procedure laid down in Article 5, paragraph 4 . The Federal Court did not rule on the lawfulness of detention . It merely confirmed the competence of the administrative authority . Here again, the Commission considers that this aspect raises complex problems which cannot be solved without an examination of the merits . The Commission therefore holds that the application cannot be considered manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph 2 of the Convention and that it should be declared admissible . Now, therefore, the Commissio n - declares inadmissible the applicant's complaint concerning the decision revoking his conditional release and the complaint that the decision ordering his rÃ¨turn to detention conflicts with the requirements of Article 6 of the Conventlon ; - declares admissible the remainder of the application, without prejudice to the merits .
Formation : Commission (plénière)
Date de la décision : 06/12/1977