Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19750530-616673
Timestamp: 2016-12-08 22:20:56+00:00
Document Index: 302331167

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', "l'article 27", '§ 2']

BAADER, MEINS, MEINHOF, GRUNDMANN c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche BAADER, MEINS, MEINHOF, GRUNDMANN c. REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNE
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Violation de l'Art. 6-1 ; Violation de l'Art. 8 ; Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisantNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 6166/73Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1975-05-30;6166.73 Analyses : (Art. 6-1) ACCES A UN TRIBUNAL, (Art. 6-1) DELAI RAISONNABLE, (Art. 6-1) DROITS ET OBLIGATIONS DE CARACTERE CIVIL, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLE, (Art. 6-1) PROCES PUBLIC, (Art. 8-1) RESPECT DE LA CORRESPONDANCE, (Art. 8-2) DEFENSE DE L'ORDRE, (Art. 8-2) INGERENCE, (Art. 8-2) NECESSAIRE DANS UNE SOCIETE DEMOCRATIQUE, (Art. 8-2) PREVENTION DES INFRACTIONS PENALESParties : Demandeurs : BAADER, MEINS, MEINHOF, GRUNDMANNDéfendeurs : REPUBLIQUE FEDERALE D'ALLEMAGNETexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 6166/7 3 Andreas BAADER, Holger MEINS, Ulrike MEINHOF, Wolfgang GRUNDMANN v/the FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMAN Y c/REPUBLIQUE FÃDÃRALE D'ALLEMAGN E DECISION of 30 May 1975 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 30 mai 1975 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ¨t e
Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention : The restrictive measures imposed on the applicants did not amount to sensory isolation nor to a break of contacts both inside and outside the prison. Given the fact that the applicants were very dangerous, these measures were necessary for the prevention of disorder and crime . They were thus justified under paragraph 2 of these provisions . Article 25 of the Convention : The death of an applicant does not automatically dispose of his complaint . In principle it is for the applicant's legal successor to decide whether to maintain his or to allow it ro be struck off the list. Articfe 26 of the Convention : Where atl applicants have appealed ro the Federal Constitutional Court in respect of various aspects of their complaints and where all aspects of the complaints have been preferred to that court by one or other of the applicants, there might be doubt as to the effectiveness of any further appeal by an applicant in respect of other aspects of his complaints which have already been rejected in similar cases .
Articfes B et 10 de la Convention : Les mesures restrictives prises Ã l'Ã©gard des requÃ©rants n'ont comportÃ© ni isolement sensoriel ni rupture des contacts tant Ã l'intÃ©rieur de la prison qu'avec le monde extÃ©rieur . Eu Ã©gard au caractÃ©re parricutiÃ©rement dangereux des requÃ©rants, ces mesures Ã© taient nÃ©cessaires Ã la protection de l'ordre et Ã la prÃ©vention des infraction pÃ©nales . Elles Ã©taient donc justifiÃ©es, conformÃ©ment aux paragraphes 2 de ces dispositions . Articfe 25 de la Convention : Le dÃ©cÃ©s d'un requÃ©rant n'Ã©teint pas automatiquement son action . Il appartient en principe Ã ses ayants droit de dÃ©cider de maintenir la requÃªte ou d'en permettre la radiation du rÃ´le. Articfe 26 de la Convention : Lorsque tous les requÃ©rants ont saisi la Cour Constitutionnelle FÃ©dÃ©rafe de certains aspects de leurs griefs et que tous les aspects de ces griefs ont Ã©tÃ© dÃ©fÃ©rÃ©s Ã cette Cour par l'un ou l'autre requÃ©rant, il est douteux qu'un nouveau recours prÃ©sentÃ© par un requÃ©rant relativement Ã© d'autres aspects de ses griefs, dÃ©jÃ rejetÃ©s dans des cas similaires, puisse Ã©tre efficace .
IfranÃ§ais : voir p, 631
At the time of introducing his application, Mr Baader was serving a prison sentence . The other applicants were detained on remand . Att applicants are suspected of being members of a criminal organisation which is known as the Red Army Fraction or the Baader-Meinhof Group. On 12 June 1971 the investigating judge (Ermitttungsrichter) of the Federat Court made the following order concerning the applicants Baader and Meins :
(1 ) The accused may only have visits from their parents . ( 2) The correspondence of the accused (in and out going) is restricted to correspondence with parents and official authorities . ( 3) The accused may order newspapers and journals only through the prison authorities . - 58 -
This order has in the meantime been amended to the effect that the accused may a/so order books through their defence counsels . On 20 June 1972 the investigating judge ordered the same restrictions with regard to Ulrike Meinhof . On 20 October 1972, the District Court supervising the applicant GrÃ¼ndmann's detention on remand ordered for him similar restrictions as had been imposed by the investigating judge of the Federal Court . Appeals against the above decisions (Mrs Meinhof only complained of the restrictions concerning her correspondence) were dismrssed. In its decisions rejecting the appeals, the Federal Court pointed out that Baader had already been /reed once on 14 May 1970 with the use of weapons and that further plaris to free members of the Baader-Meinhof Group had been reported. For these reasons the above nrentionned restrictions were necessary because it was not otherwise possible to prevent a misuse of visits, correspondence and exchange of reading material in connection with plans for escape . The constitutional appeals lodged by all applicants were joined and rejected by the Federal Constitutional Court on 14 March 1973 . The Court found that the measures taken were in accordance with constitutional /aw . It pointed out however that the decisions complained of had no definite effect I weder formelle noch materielle Rechtskra/tl . Therefore the investigating judge of the Federal Court or the district court in the case of Grundmann, were bound to make exceptions to the restrictions whenever these exceptions were justified by the factual circumstances of each particular case . The investigating ludge was also obliged to examine at regular intervals whether the circumstances necessitating the general restrictions still continued ro exist or whether the situation had changed in the meantime to the effect that the general restriction was no longer justified. Insofar as the applicant Grundmann had also complained of his isolation from other prisoners the Federal Constitutional Court pointed out that he had not exhaust the remedies in this respect . Summary of the Applicants' compfaints The applicants allege that the measures in question exceed the purpose of detention on remand. They are of the opinion that these measures aim at isolating permanently political prisoners from other detainees and persons . The authorities thus create a status of political prisoners whose rights are reduced in comparison to other prisoners . They point out that the isolation from the outside world is supplemented by an isolation within the prison, where they are allegedly excluded from the prison community life . Some of the political prisoners would even be kept in separate parts of the prison were they do not hear the normal noise of human beings around them .
They further state that their defence counsels have a difficuft stand because they have been defamed by the General Attorney (Generalbundesanwalt) who allegedly called them accomplices to the criminal organisation . Those barristers who have publically denounced the mental torture by isolation are now themselves subject to criminal prosecution . The applicants are of the opinion that the above-mentionned decisions given by the German cou rts against them violate Arts . 3, 6, 8 and 10 of the Convention . Proceedings before the Commissio n The Commission decided on 17 July 1974 to communicate the application to th e Federal Gouvernment for observations on admissibility . The respondent Government were consequently invited tu submit their observations by 20 September 1974 . After an extension of this time-limit until 25 October 1974, the observations were received at the end of that month . The applicants were invited by letter of 7 November 1974 to submit their observations in reply before 10 December 1974 . Their counsels had already announced in a letter of 9 October 1974 that they intended to submit further information and that the applicants ha d
_5g_
started a hunger strike . By letter of 18 December 1974 the applicants' counsels requested an extension of the time-limit staring that in view of the applicants' hunger strike it was not possible to prepare the reply . An extension was granted until 20 January 1975 . On 23 January 1975 the applicants' counsels requested another extension of the time-limit. They stated that the Federal Attorney (Generalbundesanwalt) considered to change the conditions of the applicants' detention . Such changes, so they said, might give reason no longer to pursue the application . They added that the applicant Meins had died on 9 November 1974 and that his applicarion was thereby settled . Another extension of the timelimit was granted until28 February 1975 . As no communication was received by that date the Secretary informed the applicants' counsels on 16 April 1975 that the case would be put before the Commission in the present state of the file . Summary of the observations of the Federal Government on the admissibility of the applicatio n In a statement of facts, the Government first describe the offences of which the applicants or the Baader-Meinhof Group are accused . In their opinion, this shows the applicants' being extraordinarih dangerous . Attention is drawn in particular to the following facts . On 31 October 1968, Baader was convicted of arson and sentenced to three years' penitentiary . On 14 May 1970, he was liberated by force of arms by the applicant Meinhof and three accomplices . Together with other members of the group the applicants took part in several raids on banks and committed robbery as well as numerous other offences . When Grundmann was arrested, a policeman was fatally shot by another member of the Group . Several persons were seriously injured or killed by bomb attaks . In every one of these cases the Red Army Group in subsequent letters to press agencies confessed to these bombings . Baader and Meins were arrested after exchanging shots with the police . When the applicant Mainhof was apprehended, she was carrying a self-made bomb in a beauty case . Two more explosive charges were discovered in her handluggage . In the meanwhile a bill of indictment had been preferred against the applicants . They were accused i.a . of murder, robbery with aggravated violence and membership in a criminal association . The Government submit that this shows the dangerousness of the applicants who are charged with the gravest criminal offences . Their dangerousness is increased, however, by their continued attempts to realise their aims with the aid of sympathisers and group members even from out of their detention . Moreover, the liberation of detained group members is one of the declared aims of the Red Army Fraction . As a matter of fact, in addition to the findings contained in various court orders, there is a considerable amount of evidence indicating preparation or attempts of liberation .
The Government therefore put forth that the applicants' dangerousness as well as their activities while in custody justify the restrictive measures ordered against them . They further ooint out that these orders are no longer in force in their original form. It has thus been possible step by step to loosen the restrictions of detention imposed on the applicants and partly to set them aside altogether especially because, as the investigations progressed, the danger of suppression of evidence diminished . It should be noted however that the applicants did not avail themselves of all the alleviations of the conditions of detention granted them. In March 1973 the applicants were thus given an opportunity of being in the company, for one hour daily, of another remand prisoner who was not one of their co-accused . None of the applicants, however, availed himseN of this opportunity . As a reason, they stated that they could be spied on . It also appears that no applications have been made for exceptional permits to allow visits by, and correspondence with, certain persons not suspected of supporting the Red Army Group . By court decision dated 6 May 1974, previous orders of the investigating judge were amended in favour of the applicants Baader, Meinhof and Meins . According thereto, visits and correspondence ara generelly permitted to a large extent .
Visits to, and correspondence with applicant Grundmann are in principle still restricted to next-of-kin and public authorities but this does not exclude persmtssion of getting in touch with other people in an individua/ case . Besides, further alleviations of detention were permitted Grundmann, especially as regards ordering newspapers, periodicals and books . He has not so far availed himseN of the opportunities of contacts with prison staff, especially social workers, chaplains and the prison psychologist . In this connection, the Government indicate that the conditions of detention to which the applicants are subject are not entirely identical . The applicant Meinhof for instance was permitted to spend four hours each day with her co-accused Ensslin . The applicant Meins might spend his daily outdoor exercise time together with other remand prisoners . As far as is known he has not availed himself of the opportunity . As regards the applicants Baader and Grundmann they still can spend their time outside only alone. Baader has been permitted, however, to watch television in the morning for two hours in the presence of a staff member. It is further submitted that the applicants are sufficiently in contact with the outside world . The applicant Baader may serve as an example in this respect : besides the monthly visits by his mother he is visited at least twice a week by his lawyers who often confer with him for hours. The situation was not radically different for the other applicants .
The Government finally maintain that the applicants are not cut off from the usual noises of human life in prison . They are indeed excluded from joint activities of the prison population because supervision would not be possible. But, of course, they have every opportunity of religious welfare and medical care . Besides, they are ahaays in touch with what happens outside through visits, broadcasts and the press . Altogether, the applicants were in no way treated worse than other very dangerous prisoners, suspected of especially grave crimes . lt was not true, either, that the applicants' lawyers were prosecuted for seditious utterances I Staatsver/eumdungl . Rather, it was right that some ol the defence counsels of Red Army Group Members have become suspected of criminal aiding and abetting or other criminal offences . In conclusion, the application was manifestly ill-founded to the extent that it was not already inadmissible lor non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies .
THE LA W 1 . The applicant Holger Meins died while the case was being dealt with by the Commission, but this fact did not automatically dispose of his complaint . On the contrary, it would have been for his legal successor to decide whether to maintain his complaint or allow it to be struck off the list . However, no communication was received from his legal successor nor did the Commission seek to clarify this situation . The Commission in fact considered that, since Holger Meins' complaint is identical with those made by the other applicants, no separate decision was necessary and it dealt with his complaint in the same way as if it had been maintained by his legal successor . In the following reasoning, therefore, no distinction is made between his and the other applicants' complaints .
2 . According to Article 26 of the Convention it is a precondition of any individual petition that all domestic remedies must have been exhausted before the Commission can deal with the application concerned . The respondent Government has claimed that the applicants did not exhaust legal remedies available to them under German law in relation to certain of their complaints . However, each applicant has appealed to the Federal Constitutional Court in respect of various aspects of his complaints and there might therefore be doubt as to the effectiveness of any further appeal by an applicant in respect of other aspects of his complaints which have already been rejected in similar cases . The Commission further considers that it need not go further into this question as in any event the application must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded for the reasons set out below . 3 . The applicants alleged that as "political prisoners" they were being subjected to the torture of isolation and that they were cut off from contacts both inside and outside the prison . They also claimed that it was being made difficult if not impossible for their defenc e
lawyers to protect the rights to which they are entitled under the German Constitution or which are guaranteed them by the Convention . With respect to the latter allegation the Commission finds that the applicants representatives were clearly not prevented from lodging a detailed application . On the other hand they failed to produce any reply to the exhaustive statement made by the respondent Government regarding the admissibility of the application although they were given adequate opportunity to file an answer in that repeated extensions of the time-limit were granted to them . In their requests for extensions of the time-limits the applicants' representatives never claimed that it had been made impossible for them to reply . It must therefore be found that the whole of the facts as stated by the respondent Government were accepted by the applicants without substantiated contradiction . With regard to the applicants' allegation that as "political prisoners" they are being subjected to torture by isolation, the Commission finds first of all that, according to the unchallenged statement made by the respondent Government, all the applicants are charged with grave offences, including murder, attempted murder, robbery and membership of a criminal association . The applicants are thus not in custody because of their political convictions but because they are suspected of offences dangerous to the community . For this reason they cannot be regarded as "political prisoners" . According to the statement of the respondent Government, the measures attacked in this application were applied for the purpose of making their detention secure . In this connection the respondent Government has stressed, inter alia, that once before Andreas Baader had been freed from custody by force of arms, that he and Holger Meins resisted arrest by using firearms, that a policeman was fatally wounded when the applicant Grundmann was arrested, and that the applicant Meinhof was carrying a home-made bomb and two other explosives when she was arrested . According to the statement made by the respondent Government, Ulrike Meinhof also had in her possession at the time of her arrest a document emanating from Gudrun Ensslin, who had been imprisoned earlier, dealing, inter alia, with the seizure of hostages in order to free imprisoned members of the so-called .Baader-Meinhof or "Red Army" Group .
The fact that Andreas Baader was freed by the use of force is not challenged in the application nor are the other facts mentioned in the above paragraph . The Commission thus finds that these tacts can be regarded as established . The circumstances described show that the applicants are particularly dangerous and, combined with the further unchallenged statement made by the respondent Government concerning proposals and in some cases attempts to free the prisoners, they indicate the necessity for guarding against attempts by the applicants to break out of prison . , According to the undisputed statement made by the respondent Government the security measures complained of have since been relaxed . Each applicant has been allowed, since March 1973, to spend one hour every day with another prisoner . Besides this they have opportunities for contacts with spiritual and medical advisers . They are not subject to sensory isolation in sound-proof cells . From radio and newspapers they know what is happening in the outside world and Baader and Meinhof are even allowed to watch television .
Apart from visits by relatives they have close contacts with the outside world in the form of numerous visits from a large number of lawyers . Except in the case of Grundmann, restrictions on their mail have largely been removed . Even if it is assumed that their mail is confined to communicating with relatives and official authorities, it must not be overlooked that, after the decision given by the Federal Constitutional Court on 14 March 1973, it has been possible for them to apply for exemptions from the general restrictions on correspondence . The applicants have not alleged that they have made any such requests which have been arbitrarily rejected . The Commission therefore holds that in the present case the restrictions placed on the rights guaranteed by Article 8 (1) and Article 10 111 of the Convention are permissible measures that were necessary for the prevention of disorder or crime within the meaning of paragraphs 2 of Articles 8 and 10 . An examination by the Commission of the complaints as they have been submitted does for the above reasons not disclose any appearance of a violation of Articles 3, 6 (1
)_62-
and (2), 8 (1) or 10 111 of the Convention . It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBL E RÃ©sumÃ© des faits Lors de l'introduction de sa requÃ©te, M. Baader Ã©tait dÃ©tenu en exÃ©cution d'une condamnation antÃ©rieure . Les autres requÃ©rants se trouvaient en dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive . lls sont tous soupÃ§onnÃ©s d'appartenir Ã© une organisation criminelle connue sous le nom de Â« fraction de l'armÃ©e rouge u ou de Â« Bande Beeder-Meinhof Â» . Le 12 juin 1972, le juge d'instruction I Eimitttungsrichter) prÃ©s la Cour FÃ©dÃ©rale a pris la dÃ©cision suivante relativement Ã MM. Baader et Meins : 1 1) Les inculpÃ©s seront uniquement autorisÃ©s Ã© recevoir la visite de leurs parents . (2) La correspondance des inculpÃ©s sera rÃ©duite Ã¨ un Ã©change de courrier avec leurs parents et les autoritÃ©s.
(3) Les inculpÃ©s ne pourront commander des journaux et revues que par l'intermÃ©diaire de l'administration pÃ©nitentiaire . Cette dÃ©cision a depuis lors Ã©tÃ© modifiÃ©e en ce sens que les inculpÃ©s peuvent Ã©galement se procurer des livres par l'intermÃ©diaire de leurs avocats .
Le 20 juin 1972, le juge d'instruction a pris des dispositions restrictives identiques Ã© l'Ã©gard d'Ulrike Meinhof. Le 20 octobre 1972, le tribunal cantonal compÃ©tent a lui aussi pris des dÃ©cisions identiques Ã© l'Ã©gard de Grundmann . Les recours formÃ©s contre ces dÃ©cisions ont tous Ã©tÃ© rejetÃ©s (U . Meinhof avait exclusivement contestÃ© les restrictions de correspondance) . Dans les dÃ©cisions rendues sur ces recours, la cour FÃ©dÃ©rale a relevÃ© que Baader avait Ã©tÃ© dÃ©jÃ© libÃ©rÃ© le 14 mai 1970 par la force des armes et que des plans de libÃ©ration d'autres membres du groupe Ã©taient connus . Pour ces motifs, les restrictions mises en cause Ã©taient nÃ©cessaires. Il n'Ã©tait pas possible, en effet, d'empÃ©cher autrement les ebus de visites, d'utilisation du courrier ou d'Ã©change de documents de toutes sortes qui pourraient Ã©tre commis dans le cadre de la prÃ©paretion d'Ã©vasions.
Le 14 mars 1973, la cour constitutionnelle fÃ©dÃ©rale a rejetÃ©, eprÃ©s les avoir joints, les recours constitutionnels formÃ©s par tous les requÃ©rants . La Cour a estimÃ© que les mesures incriminÃ©es n'Ã©taient pas contraires Ã la Constitution . Elle a toutefois soulignÃ© que les dÃ©cisions gÃ©nÃ©rales mises en cause nÃ©vaient pas dÃ©finitivement acquis force de droit (weder formelle noch materielle Rechtskraft) . Le juge d'instruction prÃ©s la Cour FÃ©dÃ©rale, ou le tribunal cantonal dans le ces de Grundmenn, Ã©tait dÃ©s lors tenu d'accorder des dÃ©rogations Ã ces mesures, chaque fois eue de telles dÃ©rogations pareissaient justifiÃ©es par les circonstances de fait. Le juge d'instmction Ã©tait par ailleura Ã©galement obligÃ© d'examiner A intervades rÃ©guliers si les circonstances rendant nÃ©cessaires les mesures gÃ©nÃ©rales de restriction se trouvaient toujours rÃ©unies ou si, au contraire, la situation s'Ã©tait modifiÃ©e en sorte que de telles mesures ne se trouvaient plus justifiÃ©es. En ce qui concerne le grief de Gmndmann relatif Ã son isolement, la Cour Constitutionnelle a dÃ©clarÃ© que le requÃ©rant n'evait pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours prÃ©alables sur ce point.
RÃ©sumÃ© des griefs des requÃ©rant s Les requÃ©rents prÃ©tendent que les mesures en question sont inconciliables avec l'objet et la fonction de la dÃ©tention prÃ©ventive . Elles visent, selon eux, Ã© isoler de faÃ§on permanente les prisonniers politiques des autres dÃ©tenus et des autres personnes en gÃ©nÃ©ral. Les autoritÃ©s crÃ©ent ainsi un statut du prisonnier politique dont les droits se trouvent rÃ©duits pa r
rapport aux autres dÃ©tenus . lls soulignent que cet isolement du monde extÃ©rieur se double d'un isolement Ã l'intÃ©rieur mÃªme de la prison puisqu'ils sont, disent-ils, exclus de la vie sociale de cette prison. Certains prisonniers politiques seraient mÃ©me soumis Ã un vÃ©ritable isolement acoustique de toute activitÃ© humaine dans des locaux spÃ©ciaux . Les requÃ©rants font valoir par ailleurs que leurs avocats se trouvent dans une situation difficile suite aux dÃ©c/arations de lAvocat GÃ©nÃ©ral (Generalbundesanwalt) qui aurait traitÃ© ceux-ci de complices d'une organisation criminelle . Les avocats qui ont dÃ©noncÃ© publiquement la torture morale constituÃ©e par l'isolement se trouvent au reste eux-mÃªmes soumis Ã des poursuites judiciaires.
Les requÃ©rants estiment que les dÃ©cisions dÃ©jA citÃ©es prises Ã leur encontre par les tribunaux allemands violent les articles 3, 6, 8 et 10 de la Convention . ProcÃ©dure devant la Commission La Commission a dÃ©cidÃ© le 17juillet 1974 de porter la prÃ©sente requÃ©te Ã la connaissance du Gouvernement FÃ©dÃ©ral afin de lui permettre de prÃ©senter des observations sur la recevabilitÃ© . Le Gouvernement a ainsi Ã©tÃ© invitÃ© Ã© prÃ©senter par Ã©crit avant le 20 septembre 1974 ses observations sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte . Cette Ã©chÃ©ance a Ã©tÃ© repoussÃ©e au 25 octobre 1974 et le mÃ©moire du Gouvernement est pervenu Ã la fin du mois d'octobra . Par lettre du 7 novembre 1974, les requÃ©rants ont alors Ã©tÃ© invitÃ©s Ã soumettre leurs observations en rÃ©ponse avant le 10 dÃ©cembre 1974. Dans une lettre du 9 octobre, leurs avocats avaient dÃ©jÃ¨ indiquÃ© leur intention de produire des renseignements complÃ©mentaires . //s informaient Ã©galement la Commission d'une grÃ©ve de la faim entamÃ©e par les requÃ©rants . Le 18 dÃ©cembre 1974, ces mÃ©mes avocats ont demandÃ© une prorogation de dÃ©lai en faisant valoir que la grÃ©ve de la faim de leurs clients rendait impossible la prÃ©paration des observations en rÃ©ponse . L'Ã©chÃ©ance a Ã©tÃ© reportÃ©e au 20 janvier 1975. Le 23 janvier 1975, les avocats ont sollicitÃ© un nouveau report d'Ã©chÃ©ance . Signalant que l'Avocat GÃ©nÃ©ral envisageait une modification des conditions de dÃ©tention des requÃ©rants, ils indiquaient que de telles modifications pourraient motiver un retrait de la requÃªte . l/s ajoutaient que Meins Ã©tait dÃ©cÃ©dÃ© le 9 novembre 1974 et que sa requÃ©te se trouvait ainsi Ã©teinte . Une prorogation de dÃ©lai au 28 fÃ©vrier 1975 fut accordÃ©e . A l'Ã©chÃ©ance de ce dÃ©lai, aucune communication n'Ã©tait cependant pervenue. Par lettre du 16 avril 1975, le SecrÃ©taire a alors informÃ© les avocats des requÃ©rants que l'affaire serait soumise Ã la Commission sur base du dossier constituÃ© par les parties Ã© cette date.
RÃ©sumÃ© des observations du Gouvernement FÃ©dÃ©ral sur fe recevabilitÃ© de fa requÃ©te Dans un exposÃ© des faits, le Gouvernement fait tout d'abord un relevÃ© des crimes imputables aux requÃ©rants et, d'une faÃ§on gÃ©nÃ©rale, Ã la Bande Baader-Meinhof. Ce relevÃ© doit mettre en lumiÃ©re le caractÃ©re extrÃ©mement dangereux des requÃ©rants. Les Ã©lÃ©ments suivants doivent en Ãªtre soulignÃ©s . Le 31 octobre 1968, Baader a Ã©tÃ© reconnu coupable du crime d'incendie volontaire et condamnÃ© Ã 3 ans de maison de rÃ©clusion . Le 14 mai 1970, il a Ã©tÃ© libÃ©rÃ© par une intervention armÃ©e d'U. Meinhof assistÃ©e de 3 complices. Par la suite, les requÃ©rants ont procÃ©dÃ© 6 divers hold-ups, attaques de banques et autres crimes, avec l'aide d'autres membres de la bande . Lors de l'arrestation de Grundmann, un policier a Ã©tÃ© mortellement blessÃ© par un coup de feu tirÃ© par un membre du groupe . De nombreuses personnes ont Ã©tÃ© tuÃ©es ou sÃ©rieusement blessÃ©es lors d'attentats A l'aide d'explosifs, toujours revendiquÃ©s auprÃ©s de la prasse par la fraction de l'armÃ©e rouge . Baader et Meins ont Ã©tÃ© arrÃ©tÃ© aprÃ©s un Ã©change de coups de feux avec la police . Lors de l'arrestation de U. Meinhof on a trouvÃ© dans ses bagages personnels une bombe artisanale et deux autres charges explosives . A ce tt e Ã©poque un acte d'accusation avait Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli contre les requÃ©rants, Ã charge desquels Ã©taient notamment retenus les chefs d'inculpation suivants : homicide volontaire, vol qualifiÃ© avec violences, association de maffaiteurs . Le Gouvernement conclut que cet exposÃ© de faits Ã©tablit Ã suffisance le danger reprÃ©sentÃ© par les requÃ©rants, accusÃ©s des crimes les plus graves . Ce danger est d'autant plus important que, en dÃ©pit de leu r
dÃ©tention, il s'efforcent encore en permanence de rÃ©aliser leurs objectifs A l'aide de membres de la bande ou de sympathisants . La libÃ©ration des membres du groupe emprisonnÃ©s constitue au surplus un des objectifs dAc/arÃ©s de la fraction de l'armÃ©e rouge . Outre les conclusions de diffÃ©rents tribunaux, les autoritÃ©s disposent ainsi d'un volume considÃ©rable de preuves relatives A des prÃ©paratifs de libÃ©ration . Le Gouvernement FÃ©dÃ©ral soutient dÃ©s lors que le caractÃ©re dangereux des requÃ©rants et la poursuite de leurs activitÃ©s durent leur dÃ©tention justifient les restrictions qui leur ont Ã©tA imposÃ©es. ll fait observer en outre que ces mesures ne sont plus en vigueur dans leur forme originale. En effet, il a Ã©tÃ© progressivement possible de rAduire voire de supprimer partiellement les restrictions imposÃ©es aux requArants, en particulier Ã raison du fait que, avec les progrÃ©s de l'instruction, les dangers de voir dissimuler ou dÃ©truire des Ã©lÃ©ments de preuve devenaient p/us limitÃ©s . I/ convient de remarquer cependant que les requÃ©rants n'ont pas usÃ© de tous le s assouplissements aux conditions de dÃ©tention qui leur ont Ã©tÃ© accordÃ©s . Ainst; bien que A partir de mars 1973, ils aient eu la possibilitÃ© de passer une heure par jour avec un autre dÃ©tenu, Ã l'exception de leurs co-accusÃ©s, aucun des requÃ©rants n'a fait usage de cette facu/tÃ©. lls ont fait valoir Ã cet Ã©gard le risque d'Ã©tre espionnÃ© . Pareillement aucune demande d'autorisation exceptionnelle n'a jamais Ã©tÃ© faite pour obtenir la visite ou l'Ã©change de correspondance avec des personnes,non suspectes de soutien A la fraction de l'armÃ©e rouge . Les premiÃ©res dÃ©cisions du juge d'instruction ont Ã©tA modifiÃ©es par dÃ©cision judiciaire du 6 mai 1974, en faveur des requÃ©rants Baader, Meinhof et Meins . Les visites et la correspondance sont dÃ©sormais autorisÃ©es dans une large mesure . Visites et correspondance sont au contraire encore limitÃ©es en principe aux proches parents et aux autoritÃ©s en ce qui concerne Grundmann. Ceci n'exclut toutefois pas l'octroi de certaines autorisations de rencontrer d'autres personnes . Grundmann bÃ©nÃ©ficie d'ailleurs d'eutres allAgements des conditions de dAtention, notamment pour la commande de quotidiens, de pÃ©riodiques et de livres . ll n'a pas, A ce jour, usÃ© de la facultÃ© qui lui est offerte d'entrer en contact avec le personnel pÃ©nitentiaire et notamment les assistants sociaux, les aumÃ´niers et le psychologue de la prison . Le Gouvernement souligne Ã ce sujet que les conditions de dÃ©tention ne sont pas identiques pour tous les requÃ©rants. Ainsi /a requÃ©rante Meinhof est-elle autorisÃ©e A passer quotidiennement quatre heures avec une de ses co-accusÃ©s, Mlle Ensslin . Le requÃ©rant Meins peut pratiquement passer son heure d'exercices extÃ©rieurs quotidiens en compagnie d'autres personnes dÃ©tenues Ã titre prAventif. Il n'a, semble-t-il, jamais fait usage de cette possibi/itA . Baader et Grundmann, au contreire, doivent passer seuls leur temps d'exercice au grand air . Baader peut toutefois suivre les programmes tÃ©/Ã©visAs durant deux heures tous les matins en prÃ©sence d'un membre du personne%
Le Gouvernement soutient en outre que les requÃ©rants ont suffisamment de contact avec le monde extÃ©rieur. // cite le cas de Baader A titre d'exemple . Outre les visites bi-mensuelles de se mÃ©re, ce requÃ©rant reÃ§oit au minimum 2 fois par semaine ses avocats avec lesquels il confÃ©re durant plusieurs heures . La situation des autres requÃ©rants n'est pas trÃ©s diffArente . ll est par ailleurs erronA, selon le Gouvernement, que les requÃ©rents soient isolÃ©s acoustiquement de toute activitÃ© humaine. Sans doute ne peuvent-ils participer aux activitÃ©s de groupe des dÃ©tenus, pour des raisons de contrÃ´le . Mais ils peuvent disposer d'une assistance religieuse et mÃ©dicale et sont au courent des AvAnements du monde extÃ©rieur par l'intermÃ©diaire des visites, des Ã©missions de radio et de la presse . D'une faÃ§on gÃ©nÃ©rale, les requÃ©rants ne seraient donc pas treitÃ©s plus durement que tout autre prisonnier dangereux soupÃ§onnÃ© d'avoir commis des crimes aussi graves . Le Gouvernement rÃ©fute Ã©galement l'assertion selon laquelle les avocats des requÃ©rants seraient poursuivis pour atteinte A l'honneur de l'Etat ( Staatsverteumdung) . La vÃ©ritÃ© est que plusieurs de ces avocats de la fraction de l'ermAe rouge sont devenus suspects de complicitÃ© criminelle ou d'autres dÃ©tits . En conclusion, la requÃ©te devrait Etre dAclerAe manifestement mal fondÃ©e dans la mesure oJ elle ne serait pas dÃ©/A irrecevable pour non-Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes .
I TRADUCTION I EN DROIT 1 . Le requÃ©rant Holger Meins est dÃ©cÃ©dÃ© ati cours de l'instance devant la Commission . Sa requÃªte ne se trouvait pas automatiquement Ã©teinte de ce fah . II appartenait au contraire Ã© son ou ses ayant-droits de dÃ©cider de maintenir la requÃ©te ou d'en autoriser la radiation du rÃ´le . Aucune communication n'a toutefois Ã©tÃ© reÃ§ue des ayants-droits et la Commission n'a pas cherchÃ© Ã clar'rfier la situation Ã© cet Ã©gard . En fait, la Commission a estimÃ© qu'aucune dÃ©cision distincte n'Ã©tait nÃ©cessaire, puisque les griefs d'Holger Meins sont identiques Ã ceux des autres requÃ©rants . Elle a examinÃ© sa requÃªte comme si elle avait Ã©tÃ© maintenue par les ayants-droits . Dans le raisonnement ci-aprÃ©s, aucune distinction n'a dÃ¨s lors Ã©tÃ© faite entre la requÃ©te prÃ©sentÃ©e par Holger Meins et celles des autres requÃ©rants . En vertu de l'anicle 26 de la Convention, la Commission ne peut Ãªtre saisie d'un e .2 requÃªte individuelle qu'aprÃ¨s l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur a fait valoir que, pour certains griefs, les requÃ©rants n'avaient pas Ã©puisÃ© les voies de recours disponibles en droit allemand . Chacun des requÃ©rants s'est toutefois pourvu devant la Cour Constitutionnelle FÃ©dÃ©rale Ã© propos de divers aspects de ses griefs . On peut dÃ©s lors avoir de sÃ©rieux doutes quant Ã l'efficacitÃ© de tout nouveau recours prÃ©sentÃ© par un requÃ©rant sur d'autres aspects de ses griefs, dÃ©jÃ© rejetÃ©s dans des cas similaires . La Commission estime par ailleurs superflu d'approfondir cette question, la requÃªt e devant en toute hypothÃ¨se Ãªtre rejetÃ©e pour dÃ©faut manHeste de fondement, confortnÃ©ment aux raisons exposÃ©es ci-aprÃ¨s . 3 . Les requÃ©rants exposent que, en tant que prisonniers politiques, ils ont Ã©tÃ© soumis Ã la torture de l'isolement et privÃ©s de tout contact tant Ã l'intÃ©rieur de la prison qu'avec le monde extÃ©rieur . Il aurait en outre Ã©tÃ© pratiquement impossible Ã leurs avocats d'assurer la dÃ©fense des droits qui leur sont reconnus par la Constitution allemande ou garantis par la Convention . , Sur ce dernier point, la Commission constate que les dÃ©fenseurs des requÃ©rants n'ont nullement Ã©tÃ© emp8chÃ©s de prÃ©senter une requÃªte dÃ©taillÃ©e . Par contre, ils n'ont produit aucune rÃ©ponse aux observations trÃ¨s fouillÃ©es du Gouvernement sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªte, bien qu'ils en aient eu amplement l'occasion puisque l'Ã©chÃ©ance pour la production d'une telle rÃ©ponse a Ã©tÃ© reportÃ©e Ã diverses reprises . Au reste, en demandant des reports de l'Ã©chÃ©ance, les dÃ©fenseurs n'ont jamais prÃ©tendu Ãªtre dans l'impossibilitÃ© de soumettre des observations en rÃ©ponse . Il faut en conclure que les faits, tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© exposÃ©s par le Gouvernement, ne font l'objet d'aucune contestation substantielle de la part des requÃ©rants . En ce qui concerne le grief des requÃ©rants selon lequel ils auraient Ã©tÃ© soumis, en tant que prisonniers politiques, Ã© la torture par isolement, la Commission relÃ¨ve en premier lieu que tout les requÃ©rants sont inculpÃ©s de crimes particuliÃ¨rement graves et notamment de meurtre, tentative de meurtre, vol qualifiÃ© et association de malfaiteurs . Ceci rÃ©sulte des observations non contestÃ©es du Gouvernement . Les requÃ©rents ne sont donc pas dÃ©tenus en raison de leurs opinions politiques, mais parce qu'ils sont soupÃ§onnÃ©s d'avoir commis des infractions reprÃ©sentant un danger social . A ce titre, ils ne peuvent Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©s comme des Â« prisonniers politiques Â» . Selon le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, les mesures ettaquÃ©es dans cette affaire ont Ã©tÃ© mises en Åuvre afin de rendre la dÃ©tention des requÃ©rants parfaitement sÃ»re . Le Gouvernement fait valoir, Ã ce sujet, que Andreas Baader a Ã©tÃ© antÃ©rieurement libÃ©rÃ© par la force des armes, que Holger Meins s'est opposÃ© Ã son arrestation en utilisant une anne Ã feu, qu'un policier a Ã©tÃ© mortellement blessÃ© au cours de l'arrestation de Grundmann, que Meinhof, enfin, transportait une bombe artisanale et deux charges explosives lorsqu'elle a Ã©tÃ© arrÃªtÃ©e . Il ressort Ã©galement des observations du Gouvernement qu'Ulrike Meinhof possÃ©dait lors de son arrestation un document rÃ©digÃ© par Gudrun Ensslin, dÃ©tenue auparavant, et traitant d'une prise d'otages en vue de la libÃ©ration de divers membres de la Bande Baader-Meinhof ou a Groupe de l'ArmÃ©e Rouge ir . _66_
La libÃ©ration armÃ©e d'Andreas Baader n'est pas contestÃ©e dans la requbte . Les autres faits mentionnÃ©s au paragraphe prÃ©cÃ©dent ne le sont pas davantage . Ces faits peuvent,donc Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©s comme Ã©tablis . Ces diffÃ©rents Ã©lÃ©ments prouvent que les requÃ©rants sont dangereux . Si on les rapproche des propositions et tentatives de libÃ©ration des prisonniers mentionnÃ©es par le Gouvernement et non contestÃ©es, ils permettent de constater la nÃ©cessitÃ© de mesures de garde destinÃ©es Ã prÃ©venir des tentatives d'Ã©vasion . Ainsi qu'il ressort des explications non contredites du Gouvernement, les mesures de sÃ©curitÃ© mises en cause ont Ã©tÃ© progressivement assouplies . Depuis le mois de mars 1973, les requÃ©rants sont individuellement autorisÃ©s Ã passer une heure par jour avec un autre dÃ©tenu . Ils peuvent avoir des contacts avec des mÃ©decins et des conseillers spirituels . Ils ne sont pas soumis Ã un isolement sensoriel dans des cellules insonorisÃ©es . Les journaux et la radio leur permettent de connaitre les Ã©vÃ©nements extÃ©rieurs . Baader et Meinhof sont mÃ©me autorisÃ©s Ã regarder la tÃ©lÃ©vision . Outre les visites des parents, leurs contacts avec le monde extÃ©rjeur comprennent de multiples visites d'un grand nombre d'avocats . Sauf dans le cas de Grundmann, les restrictions de correspondance ont Ã©tÃ© largement supprimÃ©es . Mi'me si l'on admet que leur courrier est limitÃ© en principe aux communications avec les parents et les autoritÃ©s, il convient de ne pas oublier que, depuis la dÃ©cision du 14 mars 1973 de la Cour Constitutionnelle FÃ©dÃ©rale, les requÃ©rants ont la possibilitÃ© de demander des dÃ©rogations au systÃ©me des restrictions gÃ©nÃ©rales de correspondance . Les requÃ©rants n'ont pas prÃ©tendu avoir formulÃ© de telles demandes de dÃ©rogations qui auraient Ã©tÃ© arbitrairement rejetÃ©es . La Commission estime dÃ©s lors que les restrictions imposÃ©es en l'espÃ©ce aux droits garantis par les articles 8 Â§ 1 et 10 Â§ 1 de la Convention constituent des mesures autorisÃ©es, nÃ©cessaires Ã la dÃ©fense de l'ordre et Ã la prÃ©vention des infractions pÃ©nales au sens des paragraphes 2 des articles 8 et 10 . Un examen des griefs tels qu'ils ont Ã©tÃ© prÃ©sentÃ©s ne permet donc pas Ã la Commission de dÃ©celer une apparence de violation des articles 3, 6 4 1, 8 4 1 ou 10 Â§ 1 de la Convention . Il s'ensuit que la requÃªte est manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27 Â§ 2 de la Convention .
Par ces motifs, la Commission DÃCLARE LA REOUETEIRRECEVABLE .
- 67 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (plénière)Date de la décision : 30/05/1975Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page