Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19811209-911780
Timestamp: 2016-10-25 21:13:19+00:00
Document Index: 180024114

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 26", "l'article 2", "l'article 6", "l'article 47", "l'article 6", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5", "l'article 5"]

BARCLAY-MAQUIRE c. ROYAUME-UNI
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche BARCLAY-MAQUIRE c. ROYAUME-UNI
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement recevable ; partiellement irrecevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9117/80Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1981-12-09;9117.80 Analyses : (Art. 5-1) LIBERTE PHYSIQUE, (Art. 5-1) VOIES LEGALES, (Art. 5-1-e) ALIENE, (Art. 5-2) INFORMATION DANS LE PLUS COURT DELAI, (Art. 5-4) INTRODUIRE UN RECOURSParties : Demandeurs : BARCLAY-MAQUIREDéfendeurs : ROYAUME-UNITexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 9117/80 Ad rian BARCLAY-MAGUIRE v/the UNITED KINGDO M Adrian BARCLAY-MAGUIRE c/ROYAUME-UN I DECISION of 9 December 1981 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 9 dÃ©cembre 1981 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Artlcle 5, paragraph 4 of the Convention : A period of 17 weeks and 4 days for the examination of a request for discharge bya person detained in a mental hospital (Complaint declared admissible) .
Artlcle 5, paragraphe 4, de la Conventlon : DurÃ©e de 17 semaines et 4 jours pour l'examen d'une demande de libÃ©ration prÃ©sentÃ©e par une personne internÃ©e dans une clinique psychiatrique (RequÃ©te dÃ©clarÃ©e recevable) .
TIfE FACTS
(francaÃ¯e : voir p. 218)
The applicant is a United Kingdom citizen, born in 1951, who, at the time of lodging his application was detained in a mental hospital in London . He is represented before the Commission by Mr L . Gostin, Legal Director of the National Association for Mental Health (MIND) . The applicant was detained under Section 26 of the Mental Health Act 1959 on 16 October 1979 at Springfield Hospital, London SW 17 . The said Section 26 provides for the compulsory admission of a person to a mental hospital for treatment for a period of up to one year . This may be instigated by an application from the patient's nearest relatives or by an approved social worker, supported by two medical recommendations . The grounds for the application are : l . that the person is suffering from mental disorder, being : (i) in the case of a patient of any age, mental illness or severe subnormality ;
(ii) in the case of a patient under the age of twenty-one years, psychopathic disorder or subnormality ; and that the disorder is of a nature or degree which warrants the detention of the patient in hospital for treatment ; an d 2 . that it is necessary in the interests of the patient's health or safety or for the protection of other persons that the patient be so detained . The medical recommendations must be signed on or before the date of the application for admission for treatment, and must be supplied by medical practitioners who have examined the patient either together or at an interval of not more than seven days (Section 28 (1)) . One of the recommendations must be given by a practitioner approved for the purposes of the Section by a local Health Authority as having special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorder . Unless that practitioner has previous acquaintance with the patient the other recommendation should, if practicable, be given by a medical practitioner who has previous acquaintance (Section 28 (2)) . An application for admission of a person for treatment in hospital is addressed to the manager of the hospital to which admission is sought (Section 27 (1)) . The managers of a hospital are the local Area Health Authority constituted under the National Health Service Act 1977 . A duly completed application for the admission of a person for treatment in hospital is sufficient authority for that person to be conveyed, by force if necessary, to the hospital to which admission is sought within fourteen days of the latest of the two examinations by a medical practitioner. The application is also sufficient authority for the managers of the hospital to detain the person concerned . Once admitted to hospital under the provisions of the Mental Health Act a patient is given the right to apply to a Mental Health Review Tribunal (hereafter referred to as the Tribunal) within six months of the day of this admission (Section 31 (4) and 34 (5)) . He may not make another application during the twelve months beginning with the date of his admission (Section 122 (2)) . On 20 November 1979 the applicant sent an application for discharge by a Mental Health Review Tribunal to the Regional Tribunal Ofrice, London WCI . The application was received the following day, the applicant having requested a formal hearing of his case . On 21 November 1979 MIND informed the Tribunal that it would represent the applicant . The Mental Health Act does not specify any particular period of time within which a patient's application must be heard . However the Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules 1960 (hereafter referred to as the Tribunal Rules) require that a Tribunal shall, on receipt of an application, send a copy of the application to the "responsible authority" (Rule 5) . The "responsible authority" is defined in Rule 2 to be the managers of the hospital in which th e
patient is detained . By virtue of Rule 6(1) the responsible authority is then required to send to the Tribunal, as soon as practicable, and in any case within three weeks of the receipt by them of the copy of the application, a statement containing information, the components of which are set out in the second schedule to the Rules . The Tribunal in the applicant's case requested the managers of Springfield Hospital, The Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Area Health Authority, to provide the necessary reports on the applicant . The Authority organised a meeting concerning the applicant's case with a view to deciding whether it should discharge the applicant itself, pursuant to its powers under Section 47 (4) of the Mental Health Act . It met on 5 December 1979 to consider the applicant's case file, including details of the applicant's previous voluntary and compulsory admissions to the hospital . The applicant and his consultant were interviewed and a social report considered . It was decided not to discharge the applicant . The reasons for this decision formed the basis of the statement and repons to the Tribunal . Delays in submitting this material occurred, however, because of a
shortage of staff at Springfield Hospital . Further delay occurred because of the illness of the Tribunal's chief administrative officer who would normally have endeavoured to ensure early compliance with the Tribunal's request . Nevertheless, the Tribunal's administrative staff made inquiries when the reports were not received, including two telephone reminders on 22 January and 1I February 1980, the reports being received by the Tribunal on 14 February 1980 . It is only after the receipt of such reports that the members of the particular Tribunal are appointed (Rule 8(1) of the Tribunal Rules) . By virtue of Rule 6 (2) of the Tribunal Rules, the Tribunal must send the applicant a copy of the statement furnished by the responsible authority . This was apparently done on 14 February 1980 . However in the medical report was certain material which the applicant's consultant considered unsuitable for disclosure to the applicant himself . The Tribunal, therefore, required clarification of the matter by the doctor, clarification which was received on 25 February 1980 . The medical report was disclosed to the applicant's representative, who was authorised to discuss most of it with the applicant . As mentioned above, there is no stipulation in the Tribunal Rules concerning the time within which an application should then be determined . Rule Rule 22, however, requires the Tribunal, in a case where the patient requested a formal hearing, to give him at least seven days' notice of the date, time and place of the hearing . This Rule was apparently overlooked by the Tribunal siaff, for which an apology was subsequently made . On visiting the applicant on 5 March 1980, the applicant's representative discovered that a hearing was proposed for 10 March 1980. As a result the applicant requested an adjournment, stating that he and his representative had been sent "the wrong infor-
mation on documents" and that there was too little time for his representative to prepare the case . The hearing was rescheduled for 24 March 1980 . A Tribunal considering an application front a patient detained under Section 26 of the Mental Health Act is comprised of one or more members of each of three panels, being a panel of legal members, a panel of medical members and a panel of lay members (Section 124 (2) (c) Mental Health Act) . The normal constitution is three, which is also the minimum number . The legal member is the President of the Tribunal . The Tribunal follows a procedure set out in the Mental Health Review Tribunal Rules, and has the power to discharge the patient in the face of contrary advice from the responsible authority . A tribunal is independent of the detaining party, whether it is seen as the patient's doctor, the managers of the hospital (the responsible authority) or the state . It therefore has in all important respects the necessary characteristics of a court . On 24 March 1980 the Tribunal decided not to direct the discharge,of the applicant, who was notified accordingly . The applicant was, however, later released (date unspecified) .
COMPLAINT S The applicant complains that he was not able to test the lawfulness of his detention in a mental hospital with the speed required by Article 5 (4) of the Convention, given that the Mental Health Review Tribunal reached its decision nearly eighteen weeks after the applicant's original application to it for discharge .
THE LA W The applicant complains of the delay of 17 weeks and 4 days which occurred in his application to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for discharge from a mental hospital where he was compulsorily detained . He claims that such a delay was in breach of the requirement of speed in the determination of the lawfulness of his detention pursuant to Article 5 (4) of the Convention . The Government submitted that, in the circumstances of the case, the, time taken to deal with the case caused no prejudice to the applicant an 5 (4), particularly as the applicant took no dsatifehrqumnoAticle steps to have his hearing expedited . - 217 -
The Commission considers that the application raises substantial questions of fact and a complex issue of law under Article 5 (4) with its requirement of speed, and that these ma tters cannot be resolved without an examination of the application on its merits . It cannot the refore be said to be manifestly ill-founded and no other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established . For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES THE APPLICATION ADMISSIBLE without in any way p rejudging the me rits of the case .
(TRADUCTION) EN FAI T Le requÃ©rant est un ressortissant du Royaume-Uni, nÃ© en 1951, qui, au moment oÃ¹ il a introduit sa requÃªte, Ã©tait dÃ©tenu dans un hÃ´pital psychiatrique Ã Londres . 11 est reprÃ©sentÃ© devant la Commission par MÂ° L . Gostin, Directeur juridique de la Â«National Association for Mental Health . (MIND) . Le requÃ©rant a Ã©tÃ© internÃ© le 16 octobre 1979 Ã l'hÃ´pital de Springfield (Londres . SW 1 7), conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 26 de la loi de 1959 sur les malades mentaux . L'article en question prÃ©voit l'admission forcÃ©e en clinique psychiatrique aux fins de traitement, pour une pÃ©riode pouvant aller jusqu'Ã un an . L'internement peut se faire sur demande des proches parents du malade ou d'un(e) assistant(e) social(e) agrÃ©Ã©(e), appuyÃ©e par l'avis conforme de deux mÃ©decins . Les motifs de la demande d'internement peuvent Ãªtre les suivants : 1 . Que l'intÃ©ressÃ© souffre d'un trouble mental, Ã savoi r (i) pour un malade de tout Ã¢ge, d'une maladie mentale ou anomali e grave, (ii) pour un malade de moins de 21 ans, d'un trouble ou d'une anomaGe psychopathe ; et que le trouble soit d'une nature ou d'une intensitÃ© propre Ã justifier l'internement du malade pour le soigner en hÃ´pital ; e t 2 . Que leditintemement est nÃ©cessaire Ã la santÃ© du malade, la sÃ©curitÃ© ou la protection d'autrui .
-2Ig-
Les avis conformes des mÃ©decins doivent porter la date du jour mÃªme de la demande d'admission pour traitement ou une date antÃ©rieure et provenir de praticiens ayant examinÃ© le malade ensemble ou sÃ©parÃ©ment, mais Ã un intervalle de moins de sept jours (article 28, paragraphe 1) . L'un des avis conformes doit provenir d'un praticien agrÃ©Ã© coniormÃ©ment audit article par un Service local de santÃ© comme possÃ©dant une expÃ©rience particuliÃ¨re en matiÃ¨re de diagnostic ou de traitement des troubles mentaux . Si ce praticien ne connaissait pas le malade auparavant, l'autre avis conforme doit, si possible, Ã©maner d'un mÃ©decin qui le connaissait antÃ©rieurement (article 28, paragraphe 2) . La demande d'internement d'une personne pour traitement hospitalier est adressÃ©e Ã la Direction de l'hÃ´pital concernÃ© (article 27, paragraphe 1), c'est-Ã -dire au Service local de santÃ©, constituÃ© coniormÃ©ment Ã la loi de 1977 sur le Service national de santÃ© . Une demande d'internement dÃ»ment remplie pour faire soigner un individu en asile est un document suffisant pour amener l'intÃ©ressÃ©, le cas Ã©chÃ©ant, par la force Ã l'hÃ´pital dÃ©signÃ© pour son admission dans la quinzaine qui suit le dernier des deux examens mÃ©dicaux . Cette demande suffit Ã©galement pour permettre Ã la Direction de l'hÃ´pital d'intemer l'intÃ©ressÃ© . Une fois internÃ© confortnÃ©ment aux dispositions de la loi sur les malades mentaux, le malade a le droit de s'adresser Ã un tribunal de rÃ©examen psychiatrique (Mental Health Review Tribunal) (ci-aprÃ¨s .le tribunal+) dans les six mois qui suivent le jour de son admission (articles 31, paragraphe 4 . 34, paragraphe 5) . 11 ne peut pas prÃ©senter de nouvelle demande dans les douze mois qui suivent le dÃ©but de l'internement (article 122, paragraphe 2) . Le 20 novembre 1979, le requÃ©rant adressa au greffe du tribunal rÃ©gional, Londres W .C . 1, une demande de libÃ©ration par un tribunal d . La demande parvint le lendemain, le requÃ©rant ayan erÃ©xamnpsychitqut sollicitÃ© une audition formelle de sa cause . Le 21 novembre 1979, l'Association MIND informa le tribunal qu'elle reprÃ©senterait le requÃ©rant . La loi sur les malades mentaux ne prÃ©cise pas le dÃ©lai dans lequel doit Ãªtre examinÃ©e la demande d'un malade . Cependant, le rÃ¨glement du tribunal de rÃ©examen psychiatrique adoptÃ© en 1960 (ci-aptÃ¨s .le rÃ¨glement du tribunal .) exige que, dÃ¨s rÃ©ception de la demande, le tribunal en envoie copie au .Service de tutelle . (article 5), celui-ci Ã©tant dÃ©fini Ã l'article 2 comme la Direction de l'hÃ´pital oÃ¹ le malade est intemÃ© . Selon l'article 6, paragraphe 1, le service de tutelle est alors tenu d'adresser au tribunal, dans les meilleurs dÃ©lais et en tout cas dans les trois semaines qui suivent la rÃ©ception de la copie de la demande, un exposÃ© de certains renseignements dont l'Annexe II au rÃ©glement prÃ©cise la teneur . En l'espÃ¨ce, le tribunal a demandÃ© Ã la Direction de l'hÃ´pital de Springfield, c'est-Ã -dire au Service de santÃ© des rÃ©gions de Merton, Sutton et
Wandsworth, de fournir sur le requÃ©rant les renseignements nÃ©cessai re s . Le Serv ice s'est rÃ©uni pour examiner le dossier et dÃ©cider s'il devait lui-mÃªme libÃ©rer-le requÃ©rant, conformÃ©ment au pouvoir que lui confÃ¨re l'article 47, paragraphe 4 de la loi sur les malades mentaux . La rÃ©union, qui a eu lieu le 5 dÃ©cembre 1979, a examinÃ© le dossier et, notamment, tous dÃ©tails concernant les prÃ©cÃ©dents internements, volontaires et forcÃ©s, du requÃ©rant . Le Service a entendu le requÃ©rant et son conseil et examinÃ© le rappo rt Ã© tabli par les se rv ices sociaux . Il a dÃ©cidÃ© de ne pas libÃ©rer le requÃ©rant . Les motifs de sa dÃ©cision constituent le fondement de l'exposÃ© et des rappo rts fournis au t ri bunal . Cependant, cette documentation tarda Ã Ãªtre prÃ©sentÃ©e en raison d'une pÃ©nu ri e de personnel Ã l'hÃ´pital de Sp ringfield . Un nouveau retard su rv int en raison de la maladie du gre ff ier en chef du t ri bunal qui aurait normalement essayÃ© de donner suite au plus tÃ´t aux instructions du t ri bunal . NÃ©anmoins, ne recevant pas les rappo rts, le Greffe du t ri bunal s'informa et fit notamment deux rappels par tÃ©lÃ©phone les 22 janvier et 11 fÃ©v ri er 1981 . Finalement, il reÃ§ ut les documents le 14 fÃ©v ri er 1980 et c'est seulement alors que furen ( a rt icle 8, para-ntdÃ©siglembrdachergÃ©dl'afi graphe 1 du RÃ¨glement du tri bunal) . Aux termes de l'article 6, paragraphe 2 du RÃ¨glement, le t ribunal doit adresser au requÃ©rant copie de l'exposÃ© fourni par le se rv ice de tutelle, ce qui semble avoir Ã©tÃ© fait le 14 fÃ©v ri er 1981 . Cependant, dans le rapport mÃ©dical, se trouvaient ce rtains documents que le mÃ©decin suivant le requÃ©rant estima inopportun de rÃ©vÃ©ler Ã l'intÃ©ressÃ© . Le t ri bunal demanda donc au mÃ©decin des Ã©claircissements sur l'affaire et les re Ã§ ut le 25 fÃ©v ri er 1980 . Le rapport mÃ©dical fut communiquÃ© au reprÃ©sentant du requÃ©rant, auto ri sÃ© Ã en examiner l'essentiel avec l'intÃ©ressÃ© . Comme on l'a dit, ri en dans le rÃ¨glement ne prÃ©cise le dÃ©lai dans lequel le t ri bunal doit se prononcer sur une demande . Cependant, l'a rticle 22 exige que, lorsque le malade a demandÃ© une audition formelle, le tribunal en indique au moins sept jours Ã l'avance la date, le lieu et l'heure . Ce tt e rÃ¨gle semble avoir Ã©tÃ© nÃ©gligÃ©e par le personnel du tribunal, qui s'en excusa par la suite . En rendant visite au requÃ©rant le 5 mars 1980, son reprÃ©sentant dÃ©couvrit qu'une audience Ã©tait proposÃ©e pour le 10 mars 1981 . Le requÃ©rant en demanda alors l'ajournement, en dÃ©clarant que son reprÃ©sentant et lui avaient reÃ§ u . des informations erronÃ©es sur les documents - et que l'avocat n'avait pas assez de temps pour prÃ©parer le dossier . L'audience fut repo rtÃ©e au 24 mars 1980 . Le t ri bunal qui examine la demande d'un malade internÃ© conformÃ©ment Ã l'a rticle 26 de la loi sur les malades mentaux se compose d'un ou plusieurs membres de chacune des trois commissions suivantes : une commission ju ri dique, une commission mÃ©dicale et une commission non spÃ©cialisÃ©e (article 124, paragraphe 2 c) de la loi) . Normalement, le t ri bunal se compose de trois membres, ce qui est le chiffre minimum . Le membre ju riste prÃ©side le tribunal .
Le tribunal suit la procÃ©dure fixÃ©e dans le rÃ¨glement .,du tribunal de rÃ©examen psychiatrique et peut libÃ©rer le malade mÃªme contre l'avis du Service de tutelle . Le tribunal est un organe indÃ©pendant des autoritÃ©s d'internement (mÃ©decin, direction de l'hÃ´pital, c'est-Ã -dire Service de tutelle ou l'Etat) . Il prÃ©sente donc Ã tous Ã©gards importants les caractÃ©ristiques nÃ©cessaires d'une juridiction . Le 24 mars 1980 . le tribunal dÃ©cida de ne pas ordonner la libÃ©ration du requÃ©rant, lequel en fut avisÃ© . Le requÃ©rant fut cependant libÃ©rÃ© ultÃ©rieurement ( Ã une date non prÃ©cisÃ©e) .
GRIEF S Le requÃ©rant se plaint de n'avoir pas pu faire vÃ©rifier la rÃ©gularitÃ© de sa dÃ©tention en hÃ´pital psychiatrique avec la cÃ©lÃ©ritÃ© voulue par l'article 5 . paragraphe 4, de la Convention, le tribunal de rÃ©examen psychiatrique ayant rendu sa dÃ©cision prÃ¨s de 18 semaines aprÃ¨s la premiÃ¨re demande de libÃ©ration prÃ©sentÃ©e par l'intÃ©ressÃ© .
EN DROI T Le requÃ©rant se plaint du dÃ©lai de dix-sept semaines et quatre jours qu'il a fallu au tribunal de rÃ©examen psychiatrique pour statuer sur .sa demande de libÃ©ration d'un hÃ´pital oÃ¹ il Ã©tait internÃ© . Il prÃ©tend que ce dÃ©lai Ã©tait contraire Ã l'exigence de cÃ©lÃ©ritÃ© prÃ©vue pour dÃ©cider, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 5, paragraphe 4, de la Convention, de la rÃ©gularitÃ© de sa dÃ©tention . Le Gouvernentent soutient, quant Ã lui, que dans les circonstances de l'espÃ¨ce, le tentps mis Ã traiter l'affaire n'a causÃ© aucun prÃ©judice au requÃ©rant et Ã©tait conforme Ã l'exigence de l'article 5, paragraphe 4, d'autant que l'intÃ©ressÃ© n'a pris aucune mesure pour diligenter l'instance . La Commission estime que la requÃ©te pose d'impo rtantes questions de fait et un problÃ¨nie juridique complexe au regard de l'exigence de cÃ©lÃ©ritÃ© prÃ©vue Ã l'article 5, paragraphe 4, et que ces questions ne sauraient Ãªtre rÃ©solues sans un examen au fond de la requ@te . Celle-ci ne saurait donc Ãªtre dÃ©clarÃ©e manifestement mal fondÃ©e, aucun autre motif d'irrecevabilitÃ© n'ayant Ã©tÃ© Ã©tabli . Par ces motifs, la Commissio n DÃCLARE LA REQUÃTE RECEVABLE, iout ntoyen de fond rÃ©servÃ© .
- 221 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 09/12/1981Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page