CASE OF ROOMAN v. BELGIUM
Hearing: Rooman v. Belgium (no. 18052/11) (Grand Chamber hearing, 2018-06-06 00:00:00)
Application no.: 18052/11
Document type: GRANDCHAMBER
Document date: 2019-01-31 00:00:00
ECLI: ECLI:CE:ECHR:2019:0131JUD001805211
Respondent state: BEL
Articles of the Convention: 3;5;5-1;5-1-e;34;41
Represented by: HISSEL V. ; VERSIE B.
Issue: Law of 5 May 2014 on compulsory confinement (in force since 1 October 2016), repealing the Social Protection Act of 9 April 1930
Strasbourg case-law cited: A.S. v. Turkey, no 58271/10, § 66, 13 September 2016;Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998-V;Ashingdane v. the United Kingdom, no 8225/78, report of the Commission of 12 May 1983;B. v. Germany, no 61272/09, §§ 82-84, 19 April 2012;Bergmann v. Germany, no 23279/14, §§ 124-128, 7 January 2016;Blokhin v. Russia [GC], no 47152/06, § 137, 23 March 2016;Bouamar v. Belgium, 29 February 1988, § 50, Series A no 129;Bouyid v. Belgium [GC], no 23380/09, § 81, ECHR 2015;Brand v. the Netherlands, no 49902/99, §§ 62-66, 11 May 2004;Caryn v. Belgium, no 43687/09, § 52, 9 January 2014;Claes v. Belgium, no 43418/09, §§ 93 101, 10 January 2013;Cocaign v. France, no 32010/07, 3 November 2011;De Schepper v. Belgium, no 27428/07, § 48, 13 October 2009;Dhoest v. Belgium, no 10448/83, report of the Commission of 14 May 1987, Decisions and Reports (DR);Enache v. Romania, no 10662/06, § 49, 1 April 2014;Frank v. Germany (dec.), no 32705/06, 28 September 2010;Gäfgen v. Germany [GC], no 22978/05, § 115, ECHR 2010;Garib v. the Netherlands [GC], no 43494/09, § 100, 6 November 2017;Gelaude v. Belgium, no 43733/09, 9 January 2014;Glien v. Germany, no 7345/12, §§ 93-96, 28 November 2013;Gülay Çetin v. Turkey, no 44084/10, 5 March 2013;H.W. v. Germany, no 17167/11, § 112, 19 September 2013;Hadžic and Suljic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, nos. 39446/06 and 33849/08, § 41, 7 June 2011;Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, § 82, Series A no 244;Hüseyin Yildirim v. Turkey, no 2778/02, § 73, 3 May 2007;Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, no 50272/99, §§ 49-55, ECHR 2003-IV;Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and 27505/14, §§ 139 and 141, 4 December 2018;Kadusic v. Switzerland, no 43977/13, §§ 56 and 59, 9 January 2018;Keenan v. the United Kingdom, no 27229/95, §§ 115-116, ECHR 2001 III;Klinkenbuß v. Germany, no 53157/11, § 47, 25 February 2016;Kudla v. Poland [GC], no 30210/96, §§ 82 100, ECHR 2000 XI;L.B. v. Belgium, no 22831/08, 2 October 2012;Dufoort v. Belgium, no 43653/09, 10 January 2013;Swennen v. Belgium, no 53448/10, 10 January 2013;Lorenz v. Austria, no 11537/11, §§ 58-64, 20 July 2017;M.C. v. Poland, no 23692/09, § 88, 3 March 2015;Matencio v. France, no 58749/00, §§ 76-77, 15 January 2004;Merabishvili v. Georgia [GC], no 72508/13, 28 November 2017;Moreels v. Belgium, no 43717/09, 9 January 2014;Morsink v. the Netherlands, no 48865/99, §§ 66-69, 11 May 2004;Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], no 10511/10, §§ 105-106, 26 April 2016;Naumenko v. Ukraine, no 42023/98, § 112, 10 February 2004;O.H. v. Germany, no 4646/08, §§ 88 91, 24 November 2011;O’Hara v. the United Kingdom, no 37555/97, § 34, ECHR 2001-X;Ostermünchner v. Germany, no 36035/04, 22 March 2012;Oukili v. Belgium, no 43663/09, 9 January 2014;Pankiewicz v. Poland, no 34151/04, §§ 42 45, 12 February 2008;Papillo v. Switzerland, no 43368/08, § 48, 27 January 2015;Plaisier v. Belgium, no 28785/11, 9 January 2014;Raffray Taddei v. France, no 36435/07, §§ 58 59, 21 December 2010;Rivière v. France, no 33834/03, 11 July 2006;S. v. Germany, no 3300/10, §§ 97-99, 28 June 2012;Saadi c the United Kingdom [GC], no 13229/03, §§ 67 and 69, ECHR 2008;Saadouni v. Belgium, no 50658/09, 9 January 2014;Scordino v. Italy (no 1) [GC], no 36813/97, §§ 179-180, ECHR 2006 V;Selmouni v. France [GC], no 25803/94, § 99, ECHR 1999 V;Slawomir Musial v. Poland, no 28300/06, 20 January 2009;Stanev v. Bulgaria [GC], no 36760/06, ECHR 2012;Tanase v. Moldova [GC], no 7/08, § 105, ECHR 2010;Van Meroye v. Belgium, no 330/09, 9 January 2014;W.D. v. Belgium, no 73548/13, 6 September 2016;W.P. v. Germany, no 55594/13, §§ 65-66, 6 October 2016;Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, no 6301/73, report of the Commission of 15 December 1977, (DR), § 84;Winterwerp v. the Netherlands, 24 October 1979, § 39, Series A no 33
External sources: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 13 December 2006;Articles 12 and 17, as well as the explanatory memorandum of the Recommendation REC (2004) 10 of the Committee of Ministers to member states concerning the protection of the human rights and dignity of persons with mental disorders;Report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) of 8 March 2018 on the visit to Belgium from 27 March to 6 April 2017
Conclusion: Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Separate opinion: TRUE