Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19810505-850979
Timestamp: 2017-01-16 19:45:05+00:00
Document Index: 265574630

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 653", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 27", "l'article 8", "l'article 1908", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 8", "l'article 1906", "l'article 8", "l'article 27"]

Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Non-violation de l'Art. 6-1 ; Non-violation de l'Art. 8 ; Non-violation de l'Art. 3 ; Non-violation de l'Art. 12Numérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 8509/79Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1981-05-05;8509.79 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) DELAI RAISONNABLE, (Art. 6-1) DROITS ET OBLIGATIONS DE CARACTERE CIVILParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : ALLEMAGNETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 8509/7 9 X . v/the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMAN Y X . c/RÃPUBLIQUE FÃDÃRALE D'ALLEMAGN E DECISION of 5 May 1981 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 5 mai 1981 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 8 of the Conventlon : a) Ob/igatiorr to submit to a medical exantirration and to appear in person at a court hearing in the course of guardianship proceedings considered necessarl' for the protection of the health of the person concerned . b) Guardianship . albeit provisional. constitutes an interference with the exercise of the ward's right to respect for his private life. Exantinatiort of the reasons wltirh, irr the present case . justified such iruerference.
Artlcle 8 de la Conventlon : a) Obligation de se sountettre Ã une expertise nrÃ©dicale et de comparaPtre personnellentent devant le tribunal au cours d'urre procÃ©dure en iuterdiction . corrsidÃ©rÃ©e cornnre nÃ©cessaire pour la protection de la santÃ© de l'iruÃ©ressÃ© . b) La tutelle . mÃ©rne provisoire . constitue wte ingÃ©rence dans l'exercice par le pupille du droit au respect de sa vie privÃ©e . Exanten des raisons qui . en l'espÃ¨ce . ,justifiaient une telle ingÃ©rertce .
Summary of the relevant facts Vrancais : voir p . 134 ) After the applicant . a ntarried mmn and father of 4 grown-up children . had been placed under partial guardianship for two years, proceedings for having the applicant put under complete guardianship were initiated bv the public prosecutor's office . who considered him feeble-minded and incapable of nranaging his affairs .
In the course of the summer of 1977, on various occasions . the court ordered that the applicant should have a medical examination, if necessary being brought to the examiuation by the police force . Moreover a provisional guardianship of the applicant was ordered as from september 1977. The applicant's appeals against that decision were rejected. In November 1977, the court ordered the appftcant's personal appearance at a cou rt hearing . if necessary being brought by the police. In June 1979. the court rejected the request for complete guardianship having found that-contrary to the expert's opinion-he was capable of nianaging his affairs . This decision automatically put an end to the provisional guardianship .
THE LAW ( Extract) . .. . ... ... . .. . . ii . The applicant [also] complains that the District Court in K . ordered on 201uly, 18 August and 4 October 1977 that he should be medically examined and that he should be brought to the examinations by the police if necessary, and on 15 November 1977 Ihe same court ordered him to attend before it, again being brought by the police if necessary . The applicant maintains that these decisions were frivolous and invokes Article 8 of the Convention . Article 8 provides : "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 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 ot 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 orders to undergo medical examinations or to attend court may constitute an interference with the right guaranteed by Article 8(1), especially where the orders are to be enforced by the police . However the Commission notes that the obtaining of medical evidence by way of these orders was authorised by Article 653 of the Code of Civil Procedure and a necessary element in the complete guardianship proceedings which were instituted as a result of fears as to the applicant's mental competence to handle his affairs . It follows that the interferences which these orders constituted with the applicant's rights under Article 8(1) werejustifted under the terms of article 8(2) as lawful and necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the applicant's health .
It follows that this aspect of the applicant's complaint is manifestly illfounded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . iii . The Commission has also considered the allegation relating to the attempts to put the applicant under complete guardianship under Article 8 of the Convention, the terms of which are set out above . The Commission notes that on 22 June 1979 the K . District Court rejected the prosecutor's request for the applicant to be put under complete guardianship and that this decision became final on 13 July 1979 . Consequently, the provisional guardianship that was imposed on the applicant on 23 September 1977 was terminated in accordance with Article 1908 (1) of the Civil Code . Considering that the application for the applicant to be put under complete guardianship was finally rejected, the Commission is only called upon to consider whether there is any indication of a violation of Article 8 of the Convention as a consequence of the temporary guardianship which was imposed on the applicant from 23 September 1977 until 13 July 1979 . The Commission accepts that, when a person is put under complete guardianship, albeit temporarily, which includes a power for the guardian to decide on personal matters such as, in the present case, to authorise medical treatment and to take care of the administration of the applicant's finances, these are facts that constitute an interference with his right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 (1) of the Convention . Therefore, it remains to be considered whether this interference can be justified on any of the grounds enumerated in Article 8 (2) of the Convention .
The Comntission notes in particular the reasons given for the decisions of the K . District Court on 23 September 1977 and the K . Regional Court on 20 January 1978, which concluded, on the basis of expert medical opinion, that the applicant's person and finances were at risk as a result of his illness . The Commission notes that the decisions to appoint a temporary guardian were in accordance with law since they were provided for by Article 1906 of the Civil Code, and also concludes that the temporary appointment of a guardian was necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the applicant's health, since on the evidence before the relevant courts the applicant was suffering from an illness which prevented him from appreciating both the true state of his health and of his affairs generally . It therefore concludes that this interference with the applicant's private life was justifiable in accordance with Article 8 (2) of the Convention for the reasons stated . The Comntission's examination of this part of the application does not therefore disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention and in particular of Article 8 thereof .
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . ... ... ... . . . . . .
RÃ©sumÃ© des fai[s pertinents AprÃ¨s que le requÃ©rant, mariÃ© et pÃ¨re de quatre enfants adultes, ait Ã©tÃ© placÃ© durant deuz ans sous conseil lÃ©gal, une procÃ©dure en interdiction fut engagÃ©e contre lui Ã l'initiative du parquet, qui le jugeait faible d'esprit et incapable de gÃ©rer ses affaires .
Au courant de l'Ã©tÃ© 1977, le tribunal ordonna Ã plusieurs reprises que le requÃ©rant se soumette Ã une expertise mÃ©dicale, au besoin avec l'aide de la force publique . !l ordonna par ailleurs une tutelle provisoire dÃ¨s septembre 1977. Les recours du requÃ©rant contre cette dÃ©cision furent rejetÃ©s . En novembre 1977, le rribunal ordonna la comparution personnelle du requÃ©rant, au besoin avec l'aide de la force publique. En juin 1979, le tribunai rejeta la demande en interdiction du requÃ©rant aprÃ¨s avoir constatÃ© - contrairement Ã l'avis d'un expert - qu'il Ã©tait capable de gÃ©rer ses affaires. Cette dÃ©cision mit fin ipso jure Ã la tutelle provisoire .
(lRADUCT/ON) EN DROIT (Extrait ) . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . ii . Le requÃ©rant se plaint ( Ã©galement) que le t ri bunal de district de K . a ordonnÃ© les 20 juillet, 18 aoÃ»t et 4 octobre 1977, qu'il soit examinÃ© p ar un mÃ©decin et qu'il y soit amenÃ© au besoin par la police . Il se plaint Ã©galement que, le 15 novembre 1977, le mÃªme tribunal lui a ordonnÃ© de comparaÃ®tre devant lui, de nouveau avec l'aide de la police le cas Ã©chÃ©ant . Le requÃ©rant prÃ©tend que .ces dÃ©cisions Ã© taient irrÃ©flÃ©chies et invoque Ã cet Ã©gard l'article 8 de la Convention . L'article 8 stipule : . 1 . 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 et libertÃ©s d'autrui . .
La Commission relÃ¨ve que des ordonnances prescrivant Ã une personne de se soumettre Ã des examens mÃ©dicaux ou de comparaÃ®tre devant un tribunal peuvent constituer une ingÃ©rence dans l'exercice des droits garantis par l'article 8, paragraphe 1, notamment lorsque l'exÃ©cution en est assurÃ©epar la force publique . Elle constate cependant que l'obtention d'Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve d'ordre mÃ©dical par la voie de ces ordonnances Ã©tait autorisÃ©e par l'article 653 du Code de procÃ©dure civile et constituait un Ã©lÃ©ment indispensable de la procÃ©dure d'interdiction ouverte par suite des craintes sur les aptitudes mentales du requÃ©rant Ã gÃ©rer ses affaires . Il s'ensuit que les ingÃ©rences que constituaient ces ordonnances dans l'exercice des droits garantis au requÃ©rant par l'article 8, paragraphe 1, Ã©taient justifiÃ©es au regard de l'article 8, paragraphe 2, comme Ã©tant prÃ©vues p ar la loi et nÃ©cessaires, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, Ã la protection de la santÃ© du requÃ©rant . Il en dÃ©coule que, sous cet aspect, le grief formulÃ© par le requÃ©rant est manifestement mal fondÃ©, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . iii . La Commission a Ã©galement examinÃ©, sous l'angle de l'article 8 prÃ©citÃ© de la Convention, l'allÃ©gation relative aux tentatives d'interdire le requÃ©rant . La Commission constate que le tribunal de district de K . a rejetÃ© le 22 juin 1979 la demande formulÃ©e par le ministÃ¨re public tendant Ã faire interdire le requÃ©rant et que cette dÃ©cision est devenue dÃ©finitive le 13 juillet 1979 . En consÃ©quence, la tutelle provisoire sous laquelle le requÃ©rant avait Ã©tÃ© placÃ© le 23 septembre 1977 a pris fin conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 1908, paragraphe 1 du Code civil . La demande d'interdiction du requÃ©rant ayant finalement Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©e, la Contmission doit se borner Ã examiner s'il existe des indices de violation de l'article 8 de la Convention par suite de la tutelle provisoire sous laquelle le requÃ©rant fut placÃ© du 23 septembre 1977 au 13 juillet 1979 . La Commission admet que le fait de placer quelqu'un sous tutelle, mÃ©me temporaire, et donc, notamment, de donner au tuteur pouvoir de dÃ©cider de questions personnelles comme, en l'espÃ¨ce, autoriser un traitement mÃ©dical et veiller Ã l'administration des finances de l'intÃ©ressÃ©, constitue une ingÃ©rence dans l'exercice du droit au respect de la vie privÃ©e, droit garanti par l'article 8, paragraphe 1, de la Convention . Il reste Ã examiner si cette ingÃ©rence peut se justifier pour l'un quelconque des motifs Ã©numÃ©rÃ©s Ã l'article 8, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . La Commission a pris en considÃ©ration, en particulier, les motifs indiquÃ©s par le tribunal de district de K . dans sa dÃ©cision du 23 septembre 1977 et par le tribunal rÃ©gional de K . dans celle du 20 janvier 1978, qui concluaien t
tous deux, sur la foi d'avis mÃ©dicaux autorisÃ©s, que la personne et les finances du requÃ©rant se trouvaient en danger en raison de sa maladie . La Commission constate que les dÃ©cisions de dÃ©signation d'un tuteur temporaire Ã©taient conformes Ã la loi puisque prÃ©vues par l'article 1906 du Code civil. Par ailleurs, elle estime que la mise sous tutelle temporaire Ã©tait nÃ©cessaire, dans une sociÃ©tÃ© dÃ©mocratique, Ã la protection de la santÃ© du requÃ©rant,puisqÃ» au vu des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve apportÃ©s devant les juridictions compÃ©tentes, celuici souffrait d'une maladie qui l'empÃªchait d'apprÃ©cier pleinement l'Ã©tat de sa santÃ© et de ses affaires en gÃ©nÃ©ral . La Commission estime en consÃ©quence que cette ingÃ©rence dans la vie privÃ©e du requÃ©rant Ã©tait, pour les raisons susindiquÃ©es, justifiÃ©e au regard de l'article 8, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . L'examen par la Commission de cette partie de la requÃªte ne rÃ©vÃ¨le donc aucune apparence de violation des droits et libertÃ©s inscrits dans la Convention . en son article 8 notamment . Il s'ensuit que cette partie de la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e , au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention .
- 136 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 05/05/1981Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page