Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19830302-997482
Timestamp: 2017-07-21 10:42:33+00:00
Document Index: 319354827

Matched Legal Cases: ['arrêt ', "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 3", "l'article 3"]

Type d'affaire : DécisionType de recours : Violation de l'Art. 6-1 ; Violation de l'Art. 8 ; Violation de l'Art. 13 ; Satisfaction équitable réservéeNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 9974/82Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1983-03-02;9974.82 Analyses : (Art. 10-1) LIBERTE D'EXPRESSION, (Art. 13) DROIT A UN RECOURS EFFECTIF, (Art. 6-1) ACCES A UN TRIBUNAL, (Art. 6-1) PROCES EQUITABLE, (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 PENALES, (Art. 8-2) PREVUE PAR LA LOI, (Art. 8-2) PROTECTION DE LA MORALE, (Art. 8-2) PROTECTION DE LA SANTEParties : Demandeurs : X.Défendeurs : DANEMARKTexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 9974/8 2 X . v/DENMAR K X . c/DANEMAR K DECISION of 2 March 1983 on the admissibility of the application DECISION du 2 mars 1983 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃ©te
Article 3 of the Convention : A rnedical treatment of an experimental nature without the patient's eonsent, can, under certain circumsmnces, be cotuidered as being cantrary to Article 3. This is not the casewhea, for an operation consented to by the patient, the surgeon merely makes use of a new instrument .
Article 3 de la Conventlon : Un traitemetrt mÃ©dical de caractÃ¨re expÃ©rimental meaÃ© sans le consentemeut de l'intÃ©ressÃ© peut . dans certaines circonstances . Ã©tre considÃ©rÃ© comme contraire Ã !'article J. Tel n'est pas le cas lorsque, pour une opÃ©ration acceptÃ©e par l'intÃ©ressÃ©, le chirurgien se borne Ã utiliser un instrument d'un nouveau type.
(%ranqais : voir p . 284)
The applicant was voluntarily admitted to a hospital to be sterilised since she wished to avoid having further childrett . Prior to the surgical intervention, she was informed that the result would be almost irreversible and she signed a declaration that she consented. The intervention took place by the electric cauterisation ojthe oviducts, a method used since more than two years. The surgeon used however a new model of pincers that had beett introduced approximately 3 nronths earlier aud that, according to him, had the advantage of preventing damage to adjacent areas, the two poles of the electric current being binded to the pincer itselJ: On leaving the hospital, the applicant was informed that no preventive measures nor atry control visits would be necessary.
A few weeks later she fouud herself preguant . For reasons of prittciple, she refused to have au abortion . canied through her pregnancy and gave birth to a boy . An ojftcial enquiry revealed that on 72 sterilisations carried out with pincers oj Ihat sort . 10 failed. The applicant brought an action for damages against the State . According to the experts questionned in the course of the trial . it is accepted that in gÃ©neral sterilisation operations include an 1-2% failure rate ; the expert added that there was no proof that the new instrument produced a bigger failure rate than the old one . The applicant's claini was dismissed aud her appeal was rejected.
THE LAW (Extract ) The applicant has invoked Article 3 and complained that she was subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment before and during the operation, which in itself amounted to an experiment without her consent ; and that the circumstances after the operation, until it became clear that she was in fact pregnant, amounted to psychological to rt ure within the meaning of Article 3 . Article 3 of the Convention provides : "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . "
The Commission recalls the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and that of the Commission according to which treatment will be considered inhuman only if this treatment reaches a certain stage of gravity, causing considerable mental or physical suffering . The Commission refers on this point to the judgment of the Court in the case of Ireland v . the United Kingdom (Judgment of 18 January 1978, Series A, No . 25, para . 162) . Furthermore, as for the criteria concerning the notion of "degrading treatment", the treatment itself will not be degrading unless the person concerned has undergone humiliation or debasement attaining a minimum level of severity . That level has to be assessed with regard to the circumstances of the case (see the above-mentioned Ireland v . the United Kingdom judgment paras . 162, 167 and 179-81) . In the opinion of the Commission medical treatment of an experimental character and without the consent of the person involved may under certain circumstances be regarded as prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention . In the present case it is true that the applicant was not told about the use of a changed instrument . Also it is clear that this changed instrumen t
according to a later survey had showed itself to be less effective, and that the changed method now has been improved . However, the Commission notes that the applicant voluntarily underwent an operation generally accepted to include a 1-2% failure rate . The Commission further notes that the operation was carried out in conformity with a generally acknowledged and dependable method which had been in use since 1973 . The introduction of the new instrument, which only varied slightly and in a technical way . from the old one, did not change the procedure of the operation as such, but was solely intended to prevent or minimise side-effects already known to the medical staff . The Commission has also taken into consideration that at the tirrie of the operation there was no indication that the operation in question would be less effective and secure from a medical point of view . In these circumstances the Commission finds it obvious that the operation itself cannot be considered as such a medical experiment which, if carried out without consent, could constitute a violation of Article 3 of the Convention . Moreover, the Commission also finds that the further facts of the case clearly do not disclose any appearance of a violation of Article 3 with regard to the treatment received before and after . the operation .
RÃ©sumÃ© des falts pertinents La requÃ©rante a Ã©tÃ© hospitalisÃ©e volontairement dans uu Ã©tablissentent public pour y Ã©tre stÃ©rilisÃ©e car elle dÃ©sirait Ã©viter de nouvelles grossesses . . Avant l'interventiou chirurgicale . elle fut inforntÃ©e que le rÃ©sultvt serait quasi irrÃ©versible et signa une dÃ©claration confirment son accord . L'intervention jut effectuÃ©e par cautÃ©risatiou Ã©lectrique des oviductes . une ntÃ©thode pratiquÃ©e depuis plus de deux arrs . Toutefois, le chirurgien fit usage d'un nouveau modÃ¨le de pince de cautÃ©risation, apparue depuis trois mois environ, qui. selon lui, prÃ©sentait !avantage d'Ã©viter des"lÃ©sions voisitres, les deux poles du circuit Ã©lectrique Ã©tant reliÃ©s Ã la pince elle-ntÃ©me . A sa sortie de l'hÃ´pital. la requÃ©rante fut assurÃ©e qu'aucune prÃ©caution ni aucum caurÃ´le ultÃ©rieur n'Ã©taieut uÃ©cessaires . -284-
Quelques semaines plus tard elle se trouva enceinte . Refusant. pour des raisons de principe, de se faire avorter, ellemena sa grossesse Ã ternte et accoucha d'un garcon . Une enquÃ©te officielle rÃ©vÃ©la que sttr 72 stÃ©rilismions pratiquÃ©es Ã l'aide _ 1 0 s'Ã©taient soldÃ©es par un Ã©chec .
de pirrces de ce type .
La requÃ©rante iulroduisit une action en dommages-intÃ©rÃ©ts coatre l'Etat . Selon les experts interrogÃ©s lors du procÃ¨s . il est adnu's que, d'une ntaruÃ«re gÃ©aÃ©rale, la stÃ©rilisatiou Ã©choue dans ! Ã 2 % des cas ; les experts ajoutÃ¨rent qu'il n'exislait pas de preuve que le uouvel btstruntent utilisÃ© produisit un plus grand nontbre d'Ã©checs .
La requÃ©rante fut dÃ©boutÃ©e de son action et son appel rejetÃ©.
(TRADUCTION) EN DROIT (Extrait ) La requÃ©rante, qui invoque l'article 3, se plaint d'une part qu'elle a Ã©tÃ© soumise Ã un traitement inhumain et dÃ©gradant avant et pendant tine intervention chirurgicale, qui constituait en rÃ©alitÃ© une expÃ©rience menÃ©e sans son consentement ; et, d'autre part, que la situation post-opÃ©ratoire, jusqu'Ã ce qu'il apparaisse clairement qu'elle Ã©tait en fait enceinte, Ã©quivalait Ã une torture psychologique au sens de l'article 3 . L'article 3 de la Convention est ainsi libellÃ© : . Nul ne peut Ãªtre soumis Ã la torture ni Ã des peines ou traitements inhumains ou dÃ©gradants . . La Commission rappelle la jurisprudence de la Cour europÃ©enne des Droits de l'Homme et celle de la Commission selon lesquelles un traitement ne sera considÃ©rÃ© comme inhumain que s'il atteint un minimum de gravitÃ©, provoquant de vives souffrances physiques ou morales . La Commission renvoie sur ce point Ã l'arrÃªt rendu par la Cour dans l'affaire Irlande c/RoyaumeUni (ArrÃªt du 18 juin 1978, SÃ©rie A, NÂ° 25, p . 162) . En outre, pour ce qui est des critÃ¨res relatifs Ã la notion de â¢ traitemen t dÃ©gradantâ¢, le traitement ne sera dÃ©gradant en soi que si l'intÃ©ressÃ© a subi une humiliation atteignant un minimum de gravitÃ© . Ce minimum doit Ãªtre apprÃ©ciÃ© en fonction des donnÃ©es de la cause (voir l'arrÃªt sus-mentionnÃ©, Irlande c/ Royaume-Uni, paragraphes 162, 167 et 179-181) . - 285 -
Selon la Commission, un traitement mÃ©dical de caractÃ¨re expÃ©rimental menÃ© sans le consentement du sujet peut, dans certaines conditions, Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ© comme prohibÃ© par l'article 3 de la Convention . En l'espÃ¨ce, il est vrai que la requÃ©rante n'a pas Ã©tÃ© informÃ©e de l'utilisation d'un instrument qui avait subi une modification . II est clair aussi qu'une Ã©tude faite ultÃ©rieurement a montrÃ© que cet instrument modifiÃ© Ã©tait moins efficace et que la mÃ©thode a depuis lors Ã©tÃ©amÃ©liorÃ© . . Cependant, la Commission relÃ©ve que la requÃ©rante a subi volontairement une intervention dont il Ã©tait gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnu qu'elle comportait un taux d'Ã©chec de 1 Ã 2 % . Elle relÃ¨ve en outre que l'intervention a Ã©tÃ© menÃ©e conformÃ©ment Ã une mÃ©thode gÃ©nÃ©ralement acceptÃ©e et fiable, utilisÃ©e depuis 1973 . L'introduction du nouvel instrument, qui ne comportait qu'une diffÃ©rence technique IÃ©gÃ¨le par rapport Ã l'ancien, n'a rien changÃ© au mode d'intervention en tant que tel mais ne visait qu'Ã prÃ©venir ou minimiser des effets secondaires dÃ©jÃ connus des mÃ©decins . La Commission a Ã©galement considÃ©rÃ© qu'Ã l'Ã©poque de l'opÃ©ration rien n'indiquait que cette intervention serait, d'un point de vue mÃ©dical, moins efficace et moins sGre . Dans ces conditions, la Commission estime Ã©vident que l'intervention en soi ne saurait Ãªtre considÃ©rÃ©e comme une expÃ©rience mÃ©dicale qui, si elle avait Ã©tÃ© menÃ©e sans le consentement du sujet, aurait pu constituer une violation de l'article 3 de la Convention . Du reste, la CÃ´mmission constate Ã©galementque les autres faits de la cause ne rÃ©vÃ¨lent manifestement aucune apparence de violation de l'article 3 pour ce qui concerne le traitement reÃ§u avant et aprÃ¨s l'opÃ©ration .
- 286 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 02/03/1983Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page