Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19831012-961481
Timestamp: 2017-04-27 23:05:37+00:00
Document Index: 319983182

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 6", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 180", "l'article 180", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 27", "l'article 5", "l'article 6", "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 26", "l'article 27", "l'article 8", "l'article 1", "l'article 27"]

G., S. et M. c. AUTRICHE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche G., S. et M. c. AUTRICHE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevable ; partiellement recevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9614/81Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1983-10-12;9614.81 Parties : Demandeurs : G., S. et M.Défendeurs : AUTRICHETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 9614 ;8 1 G ., S . and M . v/AUSTRI A G ., S . et M . c/AUTRICH E DECISION of 12 October 1983 on the admissibili ty of the application DÃCISION du 12 octobre 1983 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 5, paragraphe 1(c), of the Convention : 77iis prori3ion outhorises dctention ott remand where tlrere is a danger of collusion . Article 5, prragraph 2, of the Convention : Utilike Article 6 . paragraphe 3(a), which envisages the prorision of 'detviled"itrfortnation . Article 5, paragraph 2. does uot require the disclosure of the cotnplete casejde . However. su(/icient injorrnation ntust be provided to facilitate the pursuit o% the remedy euvisaged bv Article 5, paragraph 4. Artlcle 8 of the Convention : The right to respect fbr correspondence does not apply to docunrents which have already reached the addressee and are kept bv ltint . Article 1, peragraph 2, of the Flrst P rotocol : The search and seizure of' relevant doeurnents for the purposes of crintinal proceedntgs . even ij this occurs in a lawyer's offrce, is a controt oj the use of property in accordance with the general inrterest .
Article 5, paragraph 1, litt . cl, de la Convention : Cette dispositioa autorise la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventire pottr risque de collusion . Adlcle 5, peragraphe 2, de la Conventlon : Contrairentent Ã l'article 6 . paragraphe 3, litt . a). qui prÃ©voit une btjormation "dÃ©taillÃ©e". l'article 5. paragraphe 2, n Â«exige pas la conununication du dossier complet . Mais il fÃ ut notamntent que les infÃ´rmatiorts jou rn ies soient si{/fisantes polir permettre l'exercice du recours prÃ©vu Ã l'article 5, paragraphe 4. Artlele 8 de la Convention : Le droit au respect de la correspondance ne
s'applique pas Ã des documents dÃ©jÃ parvemtsÃ leur destinataire et conservÃ©s par lui .
Article 1, paragraphe 2, du Protocole additiotmel : La sotste de dotvmteuts pertinents dans le cadre d'une procÃ©dure pÃ©nale, alors tnÃ©rne ept'elle a liea dans un cabinet d'aeocm, est une rÃ©glementation de fusoge des biens cunjbrnrÃ©meut Ã lÂ«intÃ©rÃ©t gÃ©nÃ©ral.
(franÃ§ais : roir p . 123 ) Summary of the relevant fact s The applicants G . and S. nre directors oj conunerciol companies and the applicant M. is their lawyer .
In lune /981 G. and S. evere arrested nnd charged vcith rnisappropriatiou and criminal bankntptcr . As oJJule 1981 . the investigating jadge, at the prosecution s reyuest . renrored certain docurneuts %roru the caseJtle, the laev empoecering hint to du so in special circumstances i% the investigatimt wotdd be hampered bt' the dejence haring imntediate knoevledge oj such documents . ln August 1981 . the itmestigatiug judge ordered the search oJthe laurer . hl.' o(/ice . and the seizure oj eertain dacaments ~chich he had rereired jroen G. and S . G . mrd S. w ere kept in detentimt oe reumnd because there e.risled a danger ol tbeir absconding and oj their collusimt, eiit/t6r dte meaning o . paragraph 2 (2) oj the Code oj Crimieml Proeâ¢edure . G. . S. aad1lArtice80 M. each conrplained o( iiot having access to the cotnplete case Jile . !n Atorember 1981 . G. and S. w ere released ou bail bv the Court of Appeal. to xdich tder had appealed against the decision oj the investigaliug judge . extending their detention on remmtd . It wns a+lr in .htne 1987 that the dejence had access to the conpdete cuse Jile . the iudicmreu6 iu the meantirne . hnring been prelerred. Bejore the Commissiou, the applicaut G . and S . . erhu claitn tdat their contacts could no longer be oj a crimiual nature . submit . in particular, that the-rtotion oj collusiou cannot applr to non-criminal behaviour . THE LAW (Extract) .................... The applicants challenge in particular the application of s . 180 (2) (2) o f the Code of Criminal Procedure to them, claiming that detention on the ground of danger of collusion is not as such covered bv anv of the provisions in Article 5 . paragraph 1, of the Convention . 120 -
The Commission observes, however, that Article 5, paragraph Lc authorises "the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose ot bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to preveut his contntitting an offence or fleeing after having done so" . The Commission refers to its constant case-law according to which this provision has always been interpreted as covering also detention on remand based on the ground of a danger of collusion (cf. e .g . the Commission's Report on Applicatiou No . 2122/64, Wemhoff v . Federal Republic of Germany, para . 74, Publications of the Court, Series B, Vol . 5) . The commission sees no reason to depart from this constant case-law, and in particular it cannot follow the applicants' argument according to which a distinction must be made between "crintinal" and "non-criminal" collusion . As long as there is a reasonable suspicion in respect of the principal crime, the danger of collusion may theref'ore provide a legitimate ground of detention under Article 5, paragraph Lc, of the Couvention . As in the present case there is nothing to show that the danger of collusion was wrongly assumed by the courts-this has not even been claimed by the applicants theniselves-there is no reason to doubt the lawfulness of the applicants' detention uuder this title, with the consequence that a more restrictive regime of supervision was applicable to them . The applicants' contplaint in this respect therefore turns out to be manifestly ill-founded wilhin the meanirrg of Article 27, paragraph 2, of the Convention .
3 . As regards the applicants' further complaint that due to the refusal of access to the lile they were withheld information to which they were entitled by virtue of Article S . paragraph 2, of the Convention, the Commission observes that the applicants were in fact promptly informed of the reasons for their arrest and of the charges against them, by the warrants of detention served upon thent immediately after their arrest . Article 5, paragraph 2, is satisfied if the required inforntation is as such made available to the interested person . This does not imply a right to a full documentation of thÃ© case, in particular as Article 5, paragraph 2 . unlike Article 6 . paragraph 3 .a, does not require "detailed" intorntation to be given . In this context, it must be underlined that it is one of the purposes of the regulation in Article S . paragraph 2, to provide the arrested person with sufticient intormation to enable him to make use of his right under Article S . paragraph 4, to challenge the law-tulness of his detention . The Commission cousiders that by refusing the applicants access to their criminal file they were uot actually deprived ot' information which would have been essential for asserting their rights under Article 5, paragraph 4 . In particular, the applicants could have contested the existence of a danger of collusion even without knowiug exactly in relation to which facts this danger of collusion had been assumed by the court . It is also relevant in this context that the proceeding s
under Article 5, paragraph 4, do not require the full observance of the principle of equality of arms (cf. European Court of Human Rights, Neumeister case, judgmenl ol' 27 June 1968, Publications of the Court . Series A, No . 8- para . 24 at p . 44) . The applicants in the present case were in fact able to obtain the revocation of the detention order by the operation of a dontestic remedy corresponding to the requirements of Article S . paragraph 4, of the Convention, and this even prior to the Iifting of the restriction on access to the tite . In these circumstances, there is no appearance of a violation of the applicants' rights under Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention, and also no appearance of the detention having been unduly prolonged, contrary to Article 5, paragraph 3, ot the Convention, by the fact of their restricted access to the tile . The applicants' complaints in these respects must equally be rejected as being mauifestly ill-founded . 4 . The applicanls have tinally complained of the search carried out at the third applicant's otiice on 10 August 1981 . All three applicants must be understood as contptaining ot an unjustitied interf'erence with their right to respect for their correspondence . and the third applicant in addition ol' an unjustitied interfÃ©rence with the right to respect for his home (Article 8 of the Conveutiou) . The Contntission notes, however, that the third applicant as the person concerned by the above search did not lodge a remedy in his own name which would have beeu possible to him under ss . 139 and 145 (2) of the Code ot' Criminal Procedure . He has therefore failed to comply with the requirements ot Article 26 and his complaints must therefore be rejected under Article 27 . paragraph 3 . of the Convention . As regards the lirst and second applicants, they did in fact exhaust the onl,v remedy which was available to them against the search, and the Commission must therefore deal with the substance of their complaint . However, thev cannot invoke the protection of "correspondence" provided by Article 8 of the Convention, as the business documents seized had already reached their addressee and did no longer constitute "correspondence" within the technical meaniug of the term . Sonte protection is afforded in such cases to the owners of the documents in question by Article I of the Protocol to the Convention which guarantees everyone's right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions . Assuming that in the present case the applicants were the owners of the documents seized and that the nteasure complained of could therefore be seen as an intertÃ¨rence with their property rights, it would still be covered by the terms of paragraph 2 of the above article which recognises inter alia the right of a State "to enforce such laws as it deenis necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest" . The legislation authorising a search and the seizure - 122 -
of documents for the purpose of being used as evidence in criminal proceedings pursues an aim which as such is no doubt in the general interest, namely the interest to secure the orderly conduct of the c ri minal proceedings concerned . Even iF the legislation is applied to seize evidence in the hands of a lawyer representing the accused, this measure cannot be considered as dispropo rtionate it, as in the present case, the lawyer in question is allowed to designate those documents which he considers as pieces of information received in conlidence by his clients in exercise of his functions as a defence counsel, and if these pieces are then excluded from the seizure . In the circumstances, the Commission is unable to find an appearance of any unjustitied intertÃ¨rence, by the above search and seizure of documents, with the applicants' rights under the Convention, and accordingly rejects the complaints which they have put forward in this respect as being manifestly illfounded within the meaning of Article 27, paragraph 2, of the Convention .
RÃ©sumÃ© dea falts pertlneots Les requÃ©rants G . et S. dirigent des sociÃ©tÃ©s commerciales et le requÃ©rant M. est leur avocat. En juin 1981, G. et S. furent arrÃ©tÃ©s et inculpÃ©s d'abus de confiance en faillite frauduleuse. A partir de juillet 1981 le juge d'instruction, Ã la demande du ministÃ¨re public, retira du dossier certains documents, la loi permettam de le faire dans certaines circonstances, lorsque leur connaissance immÃ©diate par la dÃ©fense serait de nature Ã entraver l'instruction . En aoGt 1981, le juge d'instruction ordonna une perquisition au cabinet de l'avocat M. et fit saisir certains documents qui lui avaient Ã©tÃ© remis par G . et S . Par ailleurs, G. et S. furent maintenus en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive au motif qu'il existait un danger de fuite et un danger de collusion, au sens de l'article 180, paragraphe 2, chapitre 2, du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale. G. . S . et M. se plaignirent Ã©galement de n'avoir pas accÃ¨s au dossier complet . En novembre 1981 G. et S. furent mis en libertÃ© sous caution par dÃ©cision de la cour d'appel, Ã laquelle ils avaient recouru contre la dÃ©cision du juge d'instruction de prolonger la dÃ©tention . Ce n'est qu'en juin 1982 que la dÃ©fense eut accÃ¨s au dossier complet, l'acte d'accusation ayant Ã©tÃ© dressÃ© entre-temps . Devant la Commission, les requÃ©rants G . et S., qui prÃ©tendent que leurs contacts ne pouvaient plus avoir de caractÃ¨re pÃ©nal, soutiennent notamment que la notion de collusion ne peut Ã©tre appliquÃ©e Ã un comportement non dÃ©lictueux .
(TRADUCTION) EN DROIT (Extrait) .. . ... ... . . . . . . . . . . . Les requÃ©rants contestent notamment l'application qui leur a Ã©tÃ© faite de l'article 180, paragraphe 2, chapitre 2, du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale et prÃ©tendent que la dÃ©tention pour risque de collusion n'est visÃ©e par aucune des dispositions de l'article 5, paragraphe 1, de la Convention .
La Commission observe cependant que l'article 5, paragraphe l .c autorise la privation de libertÃ© d'un individu . s'il a Ã©tÃ© arrÃ¨tÃ© et dÃ©tenu en vue d'Ãªtre conduit devant l'autoritÃ© judiciaire compÃ©tente lorsqu'il y a des raisons plausibles de soupÃ§onner qu'il a commis une infraction ou qu'il y a des motifs raisonnables de croire Ã la nÃ©cessitÃ© de l'empÃªcher de commettree une infraclion ou de s'enfuir aprÃ¨s l'accomplissement de cetle-ci . . La Commission renvoie Ã sa jurisprudence constante selon laquelle cette disposition a toujours Ã©tÃ© interprÃ©tÃ©e comme visant Ã©galement la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive pour risque de collusion (cf . par exemple le rapport de la Commission sur la requÃªte NÂ° 2122/64, Wemhoff c/RÃ©publique fÃ©dÃ©rale d'Allemagne, paragraphe 74, Publications de la Cour, sÃ©rie B, n" 5) . Elle ne voit pas de raison de s'Ã©carter de cette jurisprudence et ne peut notamment pas souscrire Ã l'argument des requÃ©rants selon lequel il y aurait lieu de distinguer entre collusion - pÃ©naleÂ» et collusion . non pÃ©nale Â» . Tant qu'il est raisonnable de soupÃ§onner un risque de collusion Ã propos de l'infraction principale, ce risque peut dÃ¨s lors fournir un motif lÃ©gitime de dÃ©tention au regard de l'article 5 . paragraphe l .c . Comme en l'espÃ¨ce rien ne montre que les tribunaux auraient prÃ©sumÃ© Ã tort le risque de collusion - les requÃ©rants eux-mÃªmes ne l'ont pas prÃ©tendu - il n'y a pas de raison de mettre en doute la lÃ©gitimitÃ© de la dÃ©tention des requÃ©rants Ã ce titre, avec cette consÃ©quence qu'un rÃ©gime de surveillance plus sÃ©vÃ¨re leur a Ã©tÃ© appliquÃ© . Le grief des requÃ©rants sur ce point s'avÃ¨re dÃ¨s lors manifestement mal fondÃ©, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention . 3 . Pour ce qui est du grief des requÃ©rants, selon lequel par suite du refus d'accÃ¨s au dossier ils n'ont pas eu communication des informations auxquelles ils avaient droit en vertu de l'article 5, paragraphe 2, de la Convention, la Commission remarque que les requÃ©rants ont en rÃ©alitÃ© Ã©tÃ© informÃ©s dans le plus court dÃ©lai des raisons de leur arrestation et des accusations portÃ©es contre eux puisque les mandats de dÃ©pÃ´t leur ont Ã©tÃ© signifiÃ©s dÃ¨s aprÃ¨s leur arrestation . L'article 5, paragraphe 2, se trouve respectÃ© si les informations requises sont, en tant que telles, communiquÃ©es Ã l'intÃ©ressÃ© . Cette disposition n'implique pas le droit d'Ãªtre pleinement documentÃ© sur le dossier car, contrairement Ã l'article 6, paragraphe 3 .a, l'article 5, paragraphe 2 . n'oblige pas Ã fournir une information - de maniÃ¨re dÃ©taillÃ©eâ¢ . - 124 -
Il faut souligner Ã cet Ã©gard que l'un des buts de la rÃ¨gle Ã©noncÃ©e Ã l'article 5, paragraphe 2, est de fournir Ã la personne arrÃªtÃ©e suffisamment de renseignements pour lui permettre de faire usage du droit reconnu par l'article 5, paragraphe 4, de contester la rÃ©gularitÃ© de sa dÃ©tention . La Commission estime qu'en se voyant refuser l'accÃ¨s Ã leur dossier pÃ©nal, les requÃ©rants n'ont pas Ã©tÃ© effectivement privÃ©s des renseignements nÃ©cessaires pour faire vÃ loir leurs droits au regard de l'article 5, paragraphe 4 . En particulier, les requÃ©rants pouvaient contester l'existence d'un risque de collusion sans mÃªme savoir exactement Ã propos de quels faits le tribunal avait prÃ©sumÃ© ce risque . Il est Ã©galement utile Ã cet Ã©gard de noter que la procÃ©dure prÃ©vue par l'article 5, paragraphe 4, n'oblige pas Ã respecter pleinement le principe de l'Ã©galitÃ© des armes (cf . Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme, affaire Netimeister, arrÃªt du 27 juin 1968 . Publications de la Cour, sÃ©rie A, nÂ° 8, par . 24 Ã la page 44) . En l'espÃ¨ce, les requÃ©rants ont pu en fait obtenir la rÃ©vocation du mandat de dÃ©pÃ´t grÃ¢ce Ã un recours interne rÃ©pondant aux exigences de l'article 5, paragraphe 4, de la Convention, et ceci avant mÃªme que soit levÃ©e la restriction Ã l'accÃ¨s aux dossiers . Dans ces conditions, il n'y a pas apparence de violation des droits des requÃ©rants au regard de l'article 5, paragraphe 2, de la Convention, ni apparence d'une prolongation indue de la dÃ©tention contrairement Ã l'article 5, paragraphe 3, du fait des limitations d'accÃ¨s au dossier . Les griefs formulÃ©s par les requÃ©rants sur ce point doivent donc, eux aussi, Ãªtre rejetÃ©s comme manifestement mal fondÃ©s . 4 . Les requÃ©rants se sont plaints en dernier lieu de la perquisition effectuÃ©e au bureau du troisiÃ¨me requÃ©rant le 10 aoÃ»t 1981 . Il appareit que les trois requÃ©rants se plaignent d'une ingÃ©rence injustifiÃ©e dans le droit au respect de leur correspondance et que le troisiÃ¨me se plaint en outre d'une atteinte injustifiÃ©e au droit au respect de son domicile (article 8 de la Convention) . La Commission relÃ¨ve cependant qu'en tant que personne directement intÃ©ressÃ©e par la perquisition susdite, le troisiÃ¨me requÃ©rant n'a pas introduit en son nom propre le recours que lui offraient les articles 139 et 145, paragraphe 2, du Code de procÃ©dure pÃ©nale . Il n'a donc pas respectÃ© les conditions de l'article 26 et ses griefs doivent dÃ¨s lors Ãªtre rejetÃ©s conformÃ©mement Ã l'article 27, paragraphe 3, de la Convention . Par contre, les premier et deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rants ont Ã©puisÃ© la seule voie de recours qui leur Ã©tait offerte pour se plaindre de la perquisition et la Commission doit donc examiner le bien-fondÃ© de leurs griefs . Ils ne sauraient cependant invoquer la protection de la â¢correspondance . prÃ©vue Ã l'article 8 de la Convention, puisque les documents d'affaire qui ont Ã©tÃ© saisis Ã©taient dÃ©jÃ parvenus Ã leur destinataire et ne constituaient donc plus une â¢correspondanceÂ» au sens technique du terme . Cependant, une certaine protection est offerte en pareil cas aux propriÃ©taires des documents par l'article 1 du Protocole additionnel, qui garantit Ã toute personne le droit au respect de ses biens . A supposer qu'en l'espÃ¨ce les
requÃ©rants aient Ã©tÃ© les propriÃ©taires des documents saisis et que la mesure litigieuse puisse Ãªtre donc considÃ©rÃ©e comme une atteinte Ã leurs droits de propriÃ©tÃ©, la mesure serait nÃ©anmoins autorisÃ©e par les termes de l'alinÃ©a 2 de cet article, qui reconnait notamment aux Etats le droit . de mettre en vigueur les lois qu'ils jugent nÃ©cessaires pour rÃ©glementer l'usage des biens confor mÃ©ment Ã l'intÃ©rÃªt gÃ©nÃ©ral â¢ . En effet, la lÃ©gislation qui autorise Ã perquisition . ner et Ã saisir des documents pour les utiliser comme preuve dans une procÃ©dure pÃ©nale poursuit un objectif qui, en tant que tel . est indÃ©niablement d'intÃ©rÃªt gÃ©nÃ©ral puisqu'il s'agit d'assurer le bon dÃ©roulement de la procÃ©dure pÃ©nale en question . MÃªme si la lÃ©gislation est appliquÃ©e pour saisir des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve entre les mains d'un avocat reprÃ©sentant l'accusÃ©, la mesure en question ne saurait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme disproportionnÃ©e si - comme ce fut le cas en l'espÃ¨ce - l'avocat est autorisÃ© Ã indiquer les documents qui, Ã son avis, sont des informations reÃ§ues confidentiellement de ses clients dans l'exercice de ses fonctions d'avocat dÃ©fenseur et qui seront alors exclus de la saisie . Dans ces conditions, la Commission ne constate, du fait de la perquisition et de la saisie susdite des documents, aucune apparence d'atteinte injustifiÃ©e aux droits garantis aux requÃ©rants par la Convention . Elle rejette dÃ¨s lors les griefs formulÃ©s Ã cet Ã©gard comme manifestement mal fondÃ©s, au sens de l'article 27, paragraphe 2, de la Convention .
- 126 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 12/10/1983Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page