Information Note on the Court’s case-law Note d’information sur la jurisprudence de la Cour

(1)

No. /N

^o

122 August-September/Août-Septembre 2009

Information Note on the Court’s case-law

Note d’information sur la jurisprudence de la Cour

Provisional version/Version provisoire

CONSEIL DE L'EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

(2)

The Information Note, compiled by the Court’s Case-Law Information and Publications Division, contains summaries of cases examined during the month in question which the Registry considers as being of particular interest. The summaries are not binding on the Court. In the provisional version the summaries are normally drafted in the language of the case concerned, whereas the final single-language version appears in English and French respectively. The Information Note may be downloaded at <www.echr.coe.

int/echr/NoteInformation/en>. A hard-copy subscription is available for 30 euros (EUR) or 45 United States dollars (USD) per year, including an index, by contacting the publications service via the on-line form at <www.echr.coe.int/echr/contact/en>.

The HUDOC database is available free-of-charge through the Court’s Internet site (<www.echr.coe.int/hudoc>) or in a pay-for DVD version (<www.echr.coe.int/hudoccd>). It provides access to the full case-law and materials on the European Convention on Human Rights, namely the decisions, judgments and advisory opinions of the Court, the reports of the European Commission of Human Rights and the resolutions of the Committee of Ministers.

Cette Note d’information, établie par la Division des publications et de l’information sur la jurisprudence, contient les résumés d’affaires dont le greffe de la Cour a indiqué qu’elles présentaient un intérêt particulier. Les résumés ne lient pas la Cour. Dans la version provisoire, les résumés sont en principe rédigés dans la langue de l’affaire en cause ; la version unilingue du rapport paraît ultérieurement en français et en anglais et peut être téléchargée à l’adresse suivante : <www.echr.coe.int/echr/NoteInformation/fr>.

Un abonnement annuel à la version papier comprenant un index est disponible pour 30 euros (EUR) ou 45 dollars américains (USD) en contactant le service publications via le formulaire : <www.echr.coe.int/echr/contact/fr>.

La base de données HUDOC disponible gratuitement sur le site Internet de la Cour (<www.echr.coe.int/hudoc>) ou en version DVD payante (<www.echr.coe.int/hudoccd>) vous permettra d'accéder à la jurisprudence complète de la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme, qui se compose des textes suivants : décisions, arrêts et avis consultatifs de la Cour, rapports de la Commission européenne des droits de l'homme et résolutions du Comité des Ministres.

European Court of Human Rights Cour européenne des droits de l'homme

(Council of Europe) (Conseil de l'Europe)

67075 Strasbourg Cedex 67075 Strasbourg Cedex

France France

Tel: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 20 18 Tél. : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 20 18

Fax: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 30 Fax : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 30

www.echr.coe.int www.echr.coe.int

(3)

3 ARTICLE 2

Life/Vie

Positive obligations/Obligations positives

Death of a demonstrator during public-order operations at a G8 summit: no violation

Décès d’un manifestant lors d’une opération de maintien de l’ordre en marge d’un sommet du G8 : non-violation

Giuliani and/et Gaggio – Italy/Italie - 23458/02 ... 9 Positive obligations/Obligations positives

Effective investigation/Enquête efficace

Failure to conduct effective investigation into fate of Greek Cypriots missing since Turkish military operations in northern Cyprus in 1974: violation

Absence d’enquête effective sur le sort de Chypriotes grecs disparus lors des opérations militaires turques conduites dans le nord de Chypre en 1974 : violation

Varnava and Others/et autres – Turkey/Turquie - 16064/90 etc. ... 9 Failings of investigation into fatal shooting of a demonstrator by a member of the security forces at a G8 summit: violation

Lacunes de l’enquête concernant le décès d’un manifestant à la suite du tir d’un membre des forces de l’ordre en marge d’un sommet du G8 : violation

Giuliani and/et Gaggio – Italy/Italie - 23458/02 ... 12 Use of force/Recours à la force

Fatal shooting of a demonstrator by a member of the security forces at a G8 summit: no violation Décès d’un manifestant à la suite du tir d’un membre des forces de l’ordre en marge d’un sommet du G8 : non-violation

Giuliani and/et Gaggio – Italy/Italie - 23458/02 ... 12 ARTICLE 3

Inhuman treatment/Traitement inhumain

Silence of authorities in face of real concerns about the fate of Greek Cypriots missing since Turkish military operations in northern Cyprus in 1974: violation

Silence des autorités face à de réelles préoccupations concernant le sort de Chypriotes grecs disparus lors des opérations militaires turques conduites dans le nord de Chypre en 1974 : violation

Varnava and Others/et autres – Turkey/Turquie - 16064/90 etc. ... 14 Positive obligations/Obligations positives

Failure to provide adequate protection against domestic violence: violation

Absence de protection adéquate pour des victimes de violence domestique : violation

E.S. and Others/et autres – Slovakia/Slovaquie - 8227/04 ... 14 Alleged failure to prosecute Government ministers following death of detainees in fire: inadmissible Absence de poursuites à l’encontre de ministres du gouvernement après un incendie ayant provoqué la mort de détenus : irrecevable

Van Melle and Others/et autres – Netherlands/Pays-Bas - 19221/08 ... 15 Expulsion

Risk of ill-treatment in event of expulsion: violation if expelled

Risque de mauvais traitements en cas d’expulsion : violation en cas d’exécution de l’expulsion

Abdolkhani and/et Karimnia – Turkey/Turquie - 30471/08 ... 16

(4)

European Court of Human Rights / Information Note no. 122 – August-September 2009

4

ARTICLE 5 Article 5 § 1

Liberty of person/Liberté physique

Failure to conduct effective investigation into arguable claim that missing Greek Cypriots may have been detained during Turkish military operations in northern Cyprus in 1974: violation

Absence d’enquête effective sur des allégations défendables selon lesquelles des Chypriotes grecs disparus auraient été détenus pendant les opérations militaires turques conduites dans le nord de Chypre en 1974 : violation

Varnava and Others/et autres – Turkey/Turquie - 16064/90 etc. ... 17

ARTICLE 6 Article 6 § 1 (civil)

Access to court/Accès à un tribunal Fair hearing/Procès équitable

Right of access to court of prisoner held in high-security wing of prison to assert rights of a civil nature: violation

Accès à un tribunal pour contester des droits de caractère civil d’un détenu affecté à un secteur de la prison au niveau de surveillance élevé : violation

Enea – Italy/Italie - 74912/01 ... 17 Access to court/Accès à un tribunal

State immunity in civil action for torture: communicated

Immunité de l’Etat face à une action civile intentée pour des faits de torture : communiquée Jones – United Kingdom/Royaume-Uni - 34356/06

Mitchell and Others/et autres – United Kingdom/Royaume-Uni - 40528/06 ... 19 Independent and impartial tribunal/Tribunal indépendant et impartial

Decision of appellate court not to discontinue proceedings after withdrawal of one of the judges on objective impartiality grounds: no violation

Décision de la juridiction d’appel de ne pas arrêter une procédure après le retrait de l’un des juges pour absence d’impartialité objective : non-violation

Procedo Capital Corporation – Norway/Norvège - 3338/05 ... 19 Article 6 § 1 (criminal)/(pénal)

Fair hearing/Procès équitable

Statutory change depriving applicant of an advantage that had been instrumental in his choice of summary proceedings: violation

Application à une instance en cours d’un décret-loi privant le requérant d’un bénéfice ayant motivé son choix de la procédure abrégée : violation

Scoppola (no./n^o 2) – Italy/Italie - 10249/03 ... 20 Fair hearing/Procès équitable

Defence through legal assistance/Se défendre avec l’assistance d’un défenseur

Discontinuance of legally represented applicant’s criminal appeal due to one day’s absence from hearing: violation

Clôture de la procédure d’appel pénal du requérant représenté par un avocat en raison d’une absence d’une journée à l’audience : violation

Kari-Pekka Pietiläinen – Finland/Finlande - 13566/06 ... 20

(5)

5 Article 6 § 3 (c)

Defence through legal assistance/Se défendre avec l’assistance d’un défenseur

Lack of personal contact prior to appeal hearing with legal-aid counsel who had to plead the applicant’s case on the basis of submissions of another lawyer: case referred to the Grand Chamber

Absence de contact personnel avant une audience d’appel avec un avocat commis d’office qui a dû plaider l’affaire du requérant sur la base d’un mémoire établi par un autre avocat : affaire renvoyée devant la Grande Chambre

Sakhnovskiy – Russia/Russie - 21272/03 ... 21 Use in evidence of confession made in police custody in absence of a lawyer: violation

Utilisation comme preuve des aveux faits en garde à vue en l’absence d’un avocat : violation

Pishchalnikov – Russia/Russie - 7025/04 ... 21

Nulla poena sine lege

Implicit recognition by Article 7 of retroactivity of the more lenient criminal law: violation Rétroactivité de la loi pénale plus douce implicitement reconnue par l’article 7 : violation

Scoppola (no./n^o 2) – Italy/Italie - 10249/03 ... 22

ARTICLE 8

Private life/Vie privée Home/Domicile

Alleged nuisance caused by opening of dental surgery in a residential block of flats: inadmissible Nuisances prétendument provoquées par l’ou verture d’un cabinet dentaire dans un immeuble d’habitation : irrecevable

Galev and Others/et autres – Bulgaria/Bulgarie - 18324/04 ... 25 Private and family life/Vie privée et familiale

Refusal of authorisation for medication to enable severely disabled person to commit suicide:

communicated

Refus d’autoriser la délivrance de médicaments destinés à permettre le suicide d’une personne gravement handicapée : communiquée

Koch – Germany/Allemagne - 497/09 ... 25 Family life/Vie familiale

Refusal of courts to grant a woman married in a religious ceremony benefit of the social security and pension rights of her deceased husband, the father of her children: case referred to the Grand Chamber Refus des juridictions d’accorder à une femme mariée religieusement le bénéfice des droits de santé et de la pension de retraite de son défunt compagnon, père de ses enfants : affaire renvoyée devant la Grande Chambre

Şerife Yiğit – Turkey/Turquie - 3976/05 ... 26 Family life/Vie familiale

Positive obligations/Obligations positives

Insufficient action by authorities to secure the return of a child abducted by her mother: violation Action insuffisante des autorités pour assurer le retour d’un enfant enlevé par sa mère : violation

Stochlak – Poland/Pologne - 38273/02 ... 26

(6)

6

ARTICLE 9

Manifest religion or belief/Manifester sa religion ou sa conviction

State intervention in a conflict between members of a religious community: violation

Intervention de l’Etat dans un conflit entre membres d’une communauté religieuse : violation

Miroļubovs and Others/et autres – Latvia/Lettonie - 798/05 ... 27

ARTICLE 10

Freedom of expression/Liberté d’expression

Police seizure of material that could have led to identification of journalistic sources: case referred to the Grand Chamber

Saisie par la police d’éléments qui auraient pu conduire à l’identification de sources journalistiques : affaire renvoyée devant la Grande Chambre

Sanoma Uitgevers B.V. – Netherlands/Pays-Bas - 38224/03 ... 29 Insufficient statutory guarantees of inde pendence of public broadcaster: violation

Insuffisance des garanties légales de l’indé pendance de l’organisme public de radio télédiffusion : violation Manole and Others/et autres – Moldova - 13936/02 ... 29

ARTICLE 13

Effective remedy/Recours effectif

Lack of effective remedy against deportation: violation

Absence de recours effectif contre une mesure d’éloignement : violation

Abdolkhani and/et Karimnia – Turkey/Turquie - 30471/08 ... 31

Six-month period/Délai de six mois

Application in disappearance case lodged more than six months after the respondent State’s ratification of the right of individual petition: preliminary objection dismissed

Requête concernant une affaire de disparition introduite plus de six mois après la ratification par l’Etat défendeur du droit de recours individuel : exception préliminaire rejetée

Varnava and Others/et autres – Turkey/Turquie - 16064/90 etc. ... 31 Article 35 § 2 (a)

Anonymous application/Requête anonyme

Failure to disclose identity in application to European Court: inadmissible

Non-divulgation de l’identité du requérant dans sa requête devant la Cour européenne : irrecevable

“Blondje” – Netherlands/Pays-Bas - 7245/09 ... 31 Article 35 § 2 (b)

Substantially the same application/Essentiellement la même requête

Court’s jurisdiction where it had already examined case concerning substantially same facts in an inter-State case: preliminary objection dismissed

Compétence de la Cour lorsqu’elle a déjà examiné une affaire portant essentiellement sur les mêmes faits dans le cadre d’une affaire interétatique : exception préliminaire rejetée

Varnava and Others/et autres – Turkey/Turquie - 16064/90 etc. ... 32

(7)

7 Article 35 § 3

Competence ratione temporis/Compétence ratione temporis

Court’s temporal jurisdiction in respect of disappearances that had occurred some thirteen years before the respondent State recognised the right of individual petition: preliminary objection dismissed Compétence ratione temporis de la Cour quant à des disparitions survenues quelque treize ans avant la reconnaissance par l’Etat défendeur du droit de recours individuel : exception préliminaire rejetée

Varnava and Others/et autres – Turkey/Turquie - 16064/90 etc. ... 32 Abuse of the right of application/Requête abusive

Burden on Government to prove intentional breach of confidentiality amounting to abuse of right:

admissible

Charge de la preuve d’un non-respect intentionnel de la règle de confidentialité, s’analysant en un abus de droit, pesant sur le Gouvernement : recevable

Miroļubovs and Others/et autres – Latvia/Lettonie - 798/05 ... 32

ARTICLE 1 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 / ARTICLE 1 DU PROTOCOLE N^O 1 Possessions/Biens

Deprivation of property/Privation de propriété

Revocation of a welfare benefit which had been granted by mistake several months before and constituted the applicant’s sole source of income: violation

Révocation d’une prestation sociale qui avait été accordée par erreur plusieurs mois auparavant et qui constituait l’unique source de revenus de la requérante : violation

Moskal – Poland/Pologne - 10373/05 ... 32 Deprivation of property/Privation de propriété

Compensation for expropriation wholly absorbed by legal costs: violation Indemnité d’expropriation totalement absorbée par les frais de justice : violation

Perdigão – Portugal - 24768/06 ... 33 REFERRAL TO THE GRAND CHAMBER /

RENVOI DEVANT LA GRANDE CHAMBRE ... 34

(8)

(9)

9 Article 2

(CMP). The CMP was set up in 1981 with the task of drawing up comprehensive lists of missing persons on both sides and specifying whether they were alive or dead. It has no power to attribute responsibility or to make findings as to the cause of death. Mr Hadjipanteli’s remains were exhumed from a mass grave near a Turkish-Cypriot village.

A medical certificate indicated that he had received bullet wounds to the skull and right arm and a wound to the right thigh. The Turkish Government denied he had been taken prisoner, noting that his name was not on the list of Greek Cypriots held in the alleged place of detention, which had been visited by the International Red Cross (ICRC).

In a Chamber judgment of 10 January 2008 (see Information Note no. 104), the Court held that there had been continuing procedural violations of Articles 2 and 5, and a violation of Article 3. It found no substantive violation of Article 5.

Law

(a) Preliminary objections – The respondent Government challenged the Court’s jurisdiction to examine the case on several counts. Firstly, they submitted that there was no legal interest in determining the applications as the Court had already decided the question of the disappearances of all missing Greek Cypriots in the fourth inter- State case (Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, 10 May 2001, Information Note no. 30). Secondly, the applications fell outside the Court’s temporal jurisdiction as the missing men had to be presumed to have died long before Turkey’s acceptance of the right of individual petition on 28 January 1987 and there could be no freestanding procedural obligation, divorced from the factual origin of the complaints. In any event, the procedural obligation under Articles 2 and 3 was a recent jurisprudential development and could not be regarded as binding the States beforehand. Lastly, the applications had been lodged on 25 January 1990, more than six months after Turkey’s acceptance of the right to individual petition, and so were out of time.

(i) Legal interest: For the purposes of Article 35

§ 2 (b) of the Convention, an application was only

“substantially the same” as another which had already been examined if it concerned substantially not only the same facts and complaints but was introduced by the same persons. An inter-State application did not, therefore, deprive individual applicants of the possibility of introducing, or pursuing, their own claims. As to the question whether the applications should be struck from the Court’s list under Article 37 § 1 (c), the findings in the fourth inter-State case had not specified in

ARTICLE 2

Life/Vie

Positive obligations/Obligations positives Death of a demonstrator during public-order operations at a G8 summit: no violation

Décès d’un manifestant lors d’une opération de maintien de l’ordre en marge d’un sommet du G8 : non-violation

Giuliani and/et Gaggio – Italy/Italie - 23458/02 Judgment/Arrêt 25.8.2009 [Section IV]

(See below/Voir ci-dessous)

Positive obligations/Obligations positives Effective investigation/Enquête efficace

Failure to conduct effective investigation into fate of Greek Cypriots missing since Turkish military operations in northern Cyprus in 1974:

violation

Absence d’enquête effective sur le sort de Chypriotes grecs disparus lors des opérations militaires turques conduites dans le nord de Chypre en 1974 : violation

Varnava and Others/et autres – Turkey/Turquie - 16064/90 etc.

Judgment/Arrêt 18.9.2009 [GC]

Facts – The applicants were relatives of nine Cypriot nationals who disappeared during Turkish military operations in northern Cyprus in July and August 1974. The facts were disputed. Eight of the missing men were members of the Greek-Cypriot forces and it is alleged by the applicants that they disappeared after being captured and detained by Turkish military forces. Witnesses had testified to seeing them in Turkish prisons in 1974 and some of the men were identified by their families from photographs of Greek-Cypriot prisoners of war that were published in the Greek press. The Turkish Government denied that the men had been taken into captivity by Turkish forces and maintained that they had died in action during the conflict.

The ninth missing man, Mr Hadjipanteli, was a bank employee. The applicants alleged that he was one of a group of people taken by Turkish forces for questioning in August 1974 and who had been missing ever since. His body was discovered in 2007 in the context of the activity of the United Nations Committee of Missing Persons in Cyprus

(10)

Article 2 10

with the procedural obligation potentially persisting as long as the fate of the missing person was unaccounted for, even where death was presumed. In that connection, the requirement for proximity of the death and investigative steps to the date of entry into force of the Convention (see Šilih) applied only in the context of killings or suspicious deaths.

Conclusion: preliminary objection dismissed (sixteen votes to one).

(iii) Six-month rule: Applicants in disappearance cases had to make proof of a certain amount of diligence and initiative and introduce their complaints without undue delay. While the standard of expedition expected of relatives should not be too rigorous in view of the serious nature of disappearance offences, applications could be rejected where there had been excessive or unexplained delay by applicants who were, or should have been, aware that no investigation had been instigated or that it had lapsed into inaction or become ineffective and that there was no immediate, realistic prospect of an effective investigation in the future. When that stage was reached depended on the circumstances of the particular case.

In the exceptional circumstances of the instant case, which involved an international conflict with no normal investigative procedures available, it had been reasonable for the applicants to await the outcome of the Government and United Nations initiatives, as these could have resulted in steps being taken to investigate known sites of mass graves and provided the basis for further measures.

While it must have been apparent by the end of 1990 that those processes no longer offered any realistic hope of progress in either finding bodies or accounting for the fate of their relatives in the near future, the applicants had applied to the Court in January of that year. Accordingly, they had, in the special circumstances of the case, acted with reasonable expedition.

Conclusion: preliminary objection dismissed (fifteen votes to two).

(b) Merits – Article 2: The Court was satisfied that there was an at least arguable case that the missing men had last been seen in an area under, or about to come under, the control of the Turkish armed forces. Whether they had died or been taken prisoner, those men still had to be accounted for.

Article 2 had to be interpreted in so far as possible in the light of the general principles of international law, including the rules of international respect of which individual missing persons they

were made. Moreover, in individual applications, the Court had the competence to issue just satisfaction awards to individual applicants and to indicate measures under Article 46. A legal interest therefore remained in pursuing the examination of the applications.

Conclusion: preliminary objection dismissed (sixteen votes to one).

(ii) Temporal jurisdiction: The procedural obligation to carry out an investigation into deaths under Article 2 had evolved into a separate and autonomous duty and could be considered a

“detachable obligation” capable of binding the State even when the death took place before the entry into force of the Convention (see Šilih v. Slovenia [GC], no. 71463/01, 9 April 2009, Information Note no. 118). It was immaterial that that procedural obligation had only developed in the Court’s case-law after Turkey’s acceptance of the right of individual petition as case-law was a means of clarifying pre-existing texts to which the principle of non-retroactivity did not apply in the same manner as to legislative enactments.

As to the argument that the missing men had to be presumed dead long before any temporal jurisdiction had arisen in 1987, the Court distinguished between the making of a factual presumption and the legal consequences that flowed from it. The procedural obligation to investigate disappearances in life-threatening circumstances could hardly come to an end on discovery of the body or the presumption of death as an obligation to account for the disappearance and death, and to identify and prosecute any perpetrator of unlawful acts, would generally remain. Accordingly, even though a lapse of over thirty-four years without any news could provide strong circumstantial evidence of intervening death, this did not remove the procedural obligation to investigate.

Further, there was an important distinction to be drawn between the obligation to investigate a suspicious death and the obligation to investigate a suspicious disappearance. A disappearance was a distinct phenomenon, characterised by an ongoing situation of uncertainty and unaccountability in which there was a lack of information or even a deliberate concealment and obfuscation of what had occurred. It was not an

“instantaneous” act or event; the additional distinctive element of subsequent failure to account for the whereabouts and fate of the missing person gave rise to a continuing situation,

(11)

Article 2 11 outcome was not inevitable and the respondent Government could not be absolved from making the requisite efforts. The fact that both sides in the conflict may have preferred a “politically-sensitive”

approach and that the CMP with its limited remit was the only solution which could be agreed under the brokerage of the UN could have no bearing on the application of the Convention. There had thus been a continuing failure to effectively investigate the fate of the nine missing men.

Conclusion: continuing procedural violation (sixteen votes to one).

Article 3: The Court found no reason to differ from its finding in the fourth inter-State case that the Turkish authorities’ silence in the face of the real concerns of the applicants over the fate of their missing relatives could only be categorised as inhuman treatment.

Conclusion: continuing violation (sixteen votes to one).

Article 5: There was an arguable case that two of the missing men, both of whom had been included on ICRC lists as detainees, had last been seen in circumstances falling within the control of the Turkish or Turkish-Cypriot forces. However, the Turkish authorities had not acknowledged their detention, nor had they provided any documentary evidence giving official trace of their movements.

While there had been no evidence that any of the missing persons had been in detention in the period under the Court’s consideration, the Turkish Government had to show that they had carried out an effective investigation into the arguable claim that the two missing men had been taken into custody and had not been seen subsequently. The Court’s findings above in relation to Article 2 left no doubt that the authorities had also failed to conduct the necessary investigation in that regard.

Conclusion: continuing violation in respect of two of the missing men (sixteen votes to one).

Article 41: EUR 12,000 in respect of non- pecuniary damage to each of the applicants, in view of the grievous nature of the case and decades of uncertainty the applicants had endured. The Court explained that it did not apply specific scales of damages to awards in disappearance cases, but was guided by equity, which involved flexibility and an objective consideration of what was just, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.

humanitarian law, which played an indispensable and universally-accepted role in mitigating the savagery and inhumanity of armed conflict. In a zone of international conflict Contracting States were under obligation to protect the lives of those not, or no longer, engaged in hostilities. That obligation also extended to the provision of medical assistance to the wounded and to the proper disposal of remains and the provision of information on the identity and fate of those concerned. The respondent Government had not produced any evidence or convincing explanation to counter the applicants’ claims that the missing men had disappeared in areas under the former’s exclusive control. As the disappearances had occurred in life-threatening circumstances where the conduct of military operations was accompanied by widespread arrests and killings, Article 2 imposed a continuing obligation on the respondent Government to account for the missing men’s whereabouts and fate.

On the question of compliance with that obligation, the Court fully acknowledged the importance of the CMP’s ongoing exhumations and identifications of remains and gave full credit to the work being done in providing information and returning remains to relatives. It noted, however, that while the CMP’s work was an important first step in the investigative process, it was not sufficient to meet the Government’s obligation under Article 2 to carry out effective investigations. From the materials provided in respect of one of the missing men, Mr Hadjipanteli, it appeared that the procedure on identification of remains was to issue a medical certificate of death, briefly indicating the fatal injuries. There was, however, no report analysing the circumstances or even the dating of death and no investigative measures to locate or question witnesses. Thus, even though the location of the body had been established it could not be said that any clear light had been shed on how the victim had met his fate.

While recognising the considerable difficulty in assembling evidence and mounting a case so long after the events, the Court reiterated that to be effective an investigation had to be capable of leading to a determination of whether the death was caused unlawfully and, if so, to the identification and punishment of those responsible.

There was no indication that the CMP had gone beyond its limited terms of reference and no other body or authority had taken on the role of determining the facts or collecting and assessing evidence with a view to a prosecution. While an investigation might prove inconclusive, such an

(12)

Article 2 12

constata le décès. Une enquête fut aussitôt ouverte par les autorités italiennes. Des poursuites pénales pour homicide volontaire furent engagées contre l’auteur des coups de feu et le conducteur du véhicule. L’autopsie, effectuée dans les vingt-quatre heures suivant le décès, révéla que la mort avait été provoquée par le coup de feu et non par les manœuvres de dégagement du véhicule. Le parquet autorisa l’incinération de Carlo Giuliani. Il ordonna également trois expertises. En 2003, la procédure fut classée sans suite par la juge des investigations préliminaires.

En droit – a) Sur l’usage prétendument excessif de la force : à la lumière des conclusions de l’enquête, et en l’absence d’autres éléments pouvant l’amener à conclure différemment, la Cour n’a aucune raison de douter que l’auteur du coup de feu ait sin- cèrement cru que sa vie était en danger et estime qu’il a utilisé son arme dans le but de se défendre contre l’agression ayant visé les occupants de la jeep, dont lui-même, qui se sentait directement menacé. Il s’agit là de l’un des cas énumérés au second paragraphe de l’article 2, dans lesquels le recours à une force meurtrière peut être légitime, mais il va de soi qu’un équilibre doit exister entre le but et les moyens. L’auteur du coup de feu, qui a utilisé une arme puissante, ne disposait plus d’engins lacrymogènes et il n’est pas établi judiciairement qu’il avait un bouclier pour se protéger. Avant de tirer, il a hurlé et a tenu son arme dans sa main de manière visible depuis l’extérieur. Le carabinier était confronté à un groupe de manifestants qui menaient une attaque violente contre le véhicule où il se trouvait et qui avaient ignoré les sommations de s’éloigner. Dans les circonstances de la cause, le recours à la force meurtrière, quoique très regrettable, n’a pas outrepassé les limites de ce qui était absolument nécessaire pour éviter ce que le carabinier avait honnêtement perçu comme étant un danger réel et imminent menaçant sa vie et celle de ses collègues. Eu égard à ce qui précède, il n’y a pas eu usage disproportionné de la force.

Conclusion : non-violation (unanimité).

b) Sur l’obligation de protéger la vie : la Cour doit tout d’abord répondre à la question de savoir si les défaillances ayant pu entacher la préparation et la conduite de l’opération menée par les forces de l’ordre sont en rapport direct avec la mort de Carlo Giuliani. A ce titre, il convient de relever que le véhicule à bord duquel se trouvait l’auteur du coup de feu s’est retrouvé bloqué lors de la manœuvre de repli des carabiniers qui avaient attaqué des Failings of investigation into fatal shooting of a

demonstrator by a member of the security forces at a G8 summit: violation

Lacunes de l’enquête concernant le décès d’un manifestant à la suite du tir d’un membre des forces de l’ordre en marge d’un sommet du G8 : violation

(See below/Voir ci-dessous) Use of force/Recours à la force

Fatal shooting of a demonstrator by a member of the security forces at a G8 summit: no violation Décès d’un manifestant à la suite du tir d’un membre des forces de l’ordre en marge d’un sommet du G8 : non-violation

En fait – Les requérants sont les parents et la sœur de Carlo Giuliani, décédé alors qu’il prenait part à des heurts survenus lors du sommet du G8 qui se tint à Gênes du 19 au 21 juillet 2001.

Au cours d’une manifestation autorisée, des affrontements d’une extrême violence éclatèrent entre militants altermondialistes et forces de l’ordre. Sous la pression des manifestants, un peloton composé d’une cinquantaine de carabiniers se replia à pied laissant deux véhicules isolés. L’un d’eux, à bord duquel se trouvaient trois carabiniers, resta immobilisé, fut encerclé et violemment pris à partie par un groupe de manifestants, dont certains étaient armés de barres à mine, manches de pioche, pierres et autres objets contondants.

L’un des carabiniers, intoxiqué par les grenades lacrymogènes qu’il avait lancées lors d’accrochages antérieurs, avait été autorisé à monter dans la jeep pour s’éloigner des lieux du précédent affrontement.

Accroupi à l’arrière de la jeep, blessé, paniqué, se protégeant d’un côté avec un bouclier, hurlant aux manifestants de s’en aller « sinon il les tuerait », il sortit son arme de service et, après sommation, tira deux coups de feu vers l’extérieur du véhicule.

Carlo Giuliani fut mortellement blessé par une balle en plein visage. Tentant de dégager le véhicule, le conducteur roula deux fois sur le corps inanimé du jeune homme. Lorsque les manifestants furent dispersés, un médecin se rendit sur les lieux et

(13)

Article 2 13 que des images au scanner avaient clairement identifié dans le crâne. En outre, les balles tirées par le carabinier n’ont pas été retrouvées et, au demeurant, rien n’indique que l’on ait tenté de les rechercher. On ne saurait soutenir que l’autopsie qui a été pratiquée ou les constatations consignées dans le rapport d’autopsie étaient de nature à servir de point de départ à une enquête ultérieure efficace ou à satisfaire aux exigences minimales d’une investigation sur un cas manifeste d’homicide, car elles ont laissé trop de questions cruciales sans réponses. Ces lacunes doivent passer pour particulièrement graves étant donné que le corps de Carlo Giuliani a ensuite été remis aux requérants et qu’une autorisation d’incinération a été délivrée, ce qui a interdit toute analyse ultérieure, notamment celle du fragment de métal logé dans le corps. Il est d’ailleurs fort regrettable que cette autorisation d’incinération ait été donnée bien avant que les résultats de l’autopsie eussent été connus, alors même que le parquet avait jugé « superficiel » le rapport d’autopsie. Eu égard aux lacunes de l’examen médicolégal et à la non-conservation du corps, il n’est pas surprenant que la procédure judiciaire ait débouché sur le classement sans suite de l’affaire. En conséquence, les autorités n’ont pas mené une enquête adéquate sur les circonstances du décès de Carlo Giuliani.

En second lieu, l’enquête au niveau national a été limitée à l’examen de la responsabilité des acteurs immédiats. A aucun moment il n’a été question d’étudier le contexte général et de voir si les autorités avaient planifié et géré les opérations de maintien de l’ordre de façon à éviter le type d’incident ayant causé le décès de Carlo Giuliani.

En particulier, l’enquête n’a nullement visé à déterminer les raisons pour lesquelles l’auteur du coup de feu – jugé incapable par ses supérieurs de poursuivre son service en raison de son état physique et psychique – n’avait pas été immédiatement conduit à l’hôpital, avait été laissé en possession d’une arme à feu chargée et avait été placé dans une jeep privée de protection qui s’était retrouvée isolée du peloton qu’elle avait suivi. En d’autres termes, l’enquête n’a pas été adéquate dans la mesure où elle n’a pas recherché quelles étaient les personnes responsables de cette situation.

Conclusion : violation (quatre voix contre trois).

Article 41 : 15 000 EUR pour dommage moral pour les parents de la victime et 10 000 EUR pour dommage moral pour la sœur de la victime.

manifestants particulièrement agressifs. Les policiers présents à proximité ne sont pas venus en aide aux occupants du véhicule, et ces derniers se sont sentis en situation de grave danger, de sorte que l’un d’entre eux a utilisé son arme à feu.

Certes, il y a lieu de se demander i. si l’auteur, qui a agi dans un état psychologique particulier découlant d’un grand stress et de la panique, aurait pris cette initiative s’il avait bénéficié d’une formation et d’une expérience appropriées ; ii. si par ailleurs une meilleure coordination entre les forces de l’ordre présentes sur place aurait permis de contrer l’attaque de la jeep sans faire de victimes ; iii. enfin et surtout, si on aurait pu éviter le drame en prenant soin de ne pas laisser la jeep non équipée de protections au beau milieu des affrontements, d’autant que celle-ci avait à son bord des blessés non désarmés. Or la réponse à ces questions ne ressort ni de l’enquête menée au niveau national ni des autres éléments du dossier. Par ailleurs, et contrairement aux circonstances dans d’autres affaires, le danger de débordement était imprévisible et dépendait de l’évolution de la situation. Par conséquent, l’envergure de l’opération était très vaste et la conjoncture était en quelque sorte floue. De plus, les événements litigieux se sont déroulés à la fin d’une longue journée d’opérations de maintien de l’ordre au cours de laquelle les forces de l’ordre avaient subi une pression énorme. Eu égard à ce qui précède, et vu l’absence d’une enquête nationale à ce sujet – qu’elle déplore –, la Cour est dans l’impossibilité d’établir l’existence d’un lien direct et immédiat entre les défaillances qui ont pu entacher la préparation ou la conduite de l’opération de maintien de l’ordre et la mort de Carlo Giuliani. Quant à l’allégation des requérants selon laquelle, après que Carlo Giuliani s’est écroulé, les autorités ont tardé à appeler et à faire intervenir les secours, rien n’indique que l’ambulance soit arrivée en dehors d’un délai raisonnable au vu des circonstances. Eu égard à ce qui précède, il n’est pas établi que les autorités italiennes ont manqué à leur obligation de protéger la vie de Carlo Giuliani.

Conclusion : non-violation (cinq voix contre deux).

c) Sur l’observation des obligations procédurales découlant de l’article 2 de la Convention : une autopsie a été pratiquée le lendemain du décès de Carlo Giuliani par deux médecins mandatés par le parquet. Toutefois, celle-ci n’a pas permis d’établir avec certitude la trajectoire de la balle mortelle ni de récupérer un fragment métallique

(14)

Article 3 14

June 2003 the husband was convicted of ill- treatment, violence and sexual abuse and given a four-year prison sentence. Following a constitutional complaint by the applicants that they had not received proper protection, the Constitutional Court ruled that there had been no violation of the first applicant’s constitutional rights (as she could have applied for an order requiring her husband to refrain from inappropriate behaviour), but that the lower courts had failed to take appropriate action to protect the children. It made no award of compensation as it considered that the finding of a violation provided sufficient just satisfaction. In July 2003, following the introduction of new legislation in January 2003, the first applicant obtained an order excluding her husband from the flat.

Law – Articles 3 and 8: (a) Admissibility – The Government had argued that, by not applying for an order restraining the husband from inappropriate behaviour, the first applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In the Court’s view, however, such an order would not have constituted an effective remedy. The husband stood accused of physical assault and sexual abuse. An order restraining the husband from inappropriate behaviour would only have required him to refrain from acts already prohibited by the criminal law, which had not proved an adequate deterrent in the past. It would also have afforded substantially less protection than an exclusion order.

Nor did the Court accept the Government’s submission that the children had received adequate redress through the Constitutional Court’s decision. They had not been awarded any financial compensation. Nor was there much force in the Government’s submission that, by not applying for the correct form of order, the first applicant was partly responsible for the situation, as the Constitutional Court itself had found that the courts below should have granted the application for an exclusion order of their own initiative in order to protect the children. Neither the husband’s conviction more than two years later nor the subsequent amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure had afforded adequate redress to three minors who had been forced to leave the family home because of the State’s protracted failure to protect them from an abusive parent.

Conclusion: admissible (unanimously).

(b) Merits – Given the nature and severity of the allegations, the first applicant and the children had required protection immediately, not one or two years later. The first applicant had been unable to

ARTICLE 3

Inhuman treatment/Traitement inhumain Silence of authorities in face of real concerns about the fate of Greek Cypriots missing since Turkish military operations in northern Cyprus in 1974: violation

Silence des autorités face à de réelles préoccupations concernant le sort de Chypriotes grecs disparus lors des opérations militaires turques conduites dans le nord de Chypre en 1974 : violation

(See Article 2 above/Voir l’article 2 ci-dessus) Positive obligations/Obligations positives Failure to provide adequate protection against domestic violence: violation

Absence de protection adéquate pour des victimes de violence domestique : violation

E.S. and Others/et autres – Slovakia/Slovaquie - 8227/04 Judgment/Arrêt 15.9.2009 [Section IV]

Facts – In March 2001 the first applicant left her husband and petitioned for divorce. The following month she lodged a criminal complaint against her husband alleging that he had ill-treated her and the children (the second, third and fourth applicants) and sexually abused one of the daughters. In May 2001 she sought an interim injunction requiring her husband to move out of their jointly rented council flat. However, the district court dismissed that application on the grounds that it had no power to restrict the husband’s right to use the property. The applicants were therefore forced to move away from their home, family and friends and two of the children had to change school. The district court’s decision was upheld on appeal, after the regional court had noted that the first applicant would be entitled to terminate the joint tenancy after a final decision in the divorce proceedings and, in the meantime, could apply for an order requiring her husband to

“refrain from inappropriate behaviour”. The first applicant was granted a divorce in May 2002 and later obtained custody of the three children. In

(15)

Article 3 15 started the fire through criminal negligence and convicted both at first instance and on appeal. An appeal to the Supreme Court is pending.

Law – The application was lodged by a total of forty-two applicants (an NGO, survivors and relatives of the deceased) and complained of the failure to prosecute the Minister of Justice and Minister for Immigration and Integration. The complaints of all but two of the applicants were declared inadmissible ratione personae or as being outside the six-month time-limit.

As to the complaints of the remaining two applicants, who were next of kin, the Court noted that the existence of a credible assertion of treatment infringing Article 3 (which for present purposes, the Court assumed) did not necessarily entail an obligation to prosecute the persons whom the applicants wished to see held to account. More generally, where an infringement of the right to life or to physical integrity was not caused intentionally, the positive obligation imposed by Article 3 to set up an effective judicial system did not necessarily require the provision of a criminal- law remedy in every case.

In the applicants’ case, moreover, an independent committee had investigated and produced a detailed, highly critical report, which the Court was prepared to accept as reliable, specifically identifying the Government institutions responsible for the failure to ensure the detainees’

safety. As a result, two of the ministers responsible had resigned on grounds of political responsibility.

Accordingly, in so far as they were addressed directly to members of the Government at ministerial level, the procedural requirements of Article 3 had been satisfied. There was nothing in the application to suggest that the Minister of Justice – one of those who had resigned over the matter – and the Minister for Immigration and Integration had personally disregarded their duties to the point of criminal responsibility warranting prosecution.

Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).

Expulsion

Risk of ill-treatment in event of expulsion:

violation if expelled

Risque de mauvais traitements en cas d’expulsion : violation en cas d’exécution de l’expulsion

apply to sever the tenancy until her divorce was finalised in May 2002, or to apply for an order excluding her former husband from the matrimonial home until after the law was amended in January 2003. She had been without effective protection for herself and the children during the interim. The respondent State had therefore failed to discharge its positive obligations towards them.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Alleged failure to prosecute Government ministers following death of detainees in fire:

inadmissible

Absence de poursuites à l’encontre de ministres du gouvernement après un incendie ayant provoqué la mort de détenus : irrecevable

Van Melle and Others/et autres – Netherlands/Pays-Bas - 19221/08 Decision/Décision 29.9.2009 [Section III]

Facts – In October 2005 eleven aliens who were being held in a detention centre pending deportation were killed in a fire. Technical investigations led to the finding that one of the detainees had started the fire by negligently tossing a burning cigarette into a waste paper basket. A letter was subsequently sent to the regional court public prosecutor calling for the prosecution of the Minister of Justice and Minister for Immigration and Integration. No prosecution was brought, however, as under domestic law a Royal Decree or decision of the Lower House of Parliament was required for the prosecution of a government minister. In the interim, an independent body, the Investigation Committee for Safety Issues, investigated the case. In a report it submitted to the Lower House of Parliament in September 2006, it stated that extensive testing indicated that the fire could well have been started by a cigarette end and that technical failure was so unlikely a cause as to be excluded. It nevertheless found fault with three Government institutions, including the Ministry of Justice (which was responsible for the technical specifications and for securing the safety of the detainees), but not the Ministry for Immigration and Integration. Following the publication of the report, which included recommendations to the three ministries found to have been at fault, two ministers, including the Minister of Justice, resigned on grounds of political responsibility. The detainee found to have set the waste paper basket alight, was tried for having

(16)

Article 3 16

various sources indicated a strong possibility that persons perceived to be affiliated to the PMOI were removed from Iraq to Iran.

There was, therefore, a real risk of the applicants being subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 if they were returned to Iran or Iraq. In that connection, the fact that PMOI members might create a risk to national security, public safety and order in Turkey was irrelevant, given the absolute nature of the protection afforded by Article 3. In any case, the applicants had left the PMOI and were now UNHCR recognised refugees.

Conclusion: violation if deported (unanimously).

Article 13: Both the administrative and judicial authorities had remained totally passive regarding the applicants’ serious allegations of a risk of ill- treatment if they were returned to Iraq or Iran.

Moreover, by failing to consider the applicants’

requests for temporary asylum, to notify them of the reasons for not taking their asylum requests into consideration and to authorise them to have access to legal assistance (despite their explicit request for a lawyer) while in police detention, the national authorities had prevented the applicants from raising their allegations under Article 3 within the relevant legislative framework. What was more, the applicants could not even apply to the authorities for annulment of the decision to deport them as they had not been served with the deportation orders or notified of the reasons for their removal. In any event, judicial review in deportation cases in Turkey could not be regarded as an effective remedy since an application for annulment of a deportation order did not have suspensive effect unless the administrative court specifically ordered a stay of execution. The applicants had not therefore been provided with an effective and accessible remedy in relation to their Article 3 complaints.

Article 5 § 1: In the absence of clear legal provisions establishing the procedure for ordering and extending detention with a view to deportation and setting time-limits for such detention, the national system had failed to protect the applicants from arbitrary detention and, consequently, their detention could not be considered “lawful”.

Article 5 § 2: The applicants had been arrested on 21 June 2008 and subsequently detained in police custody. On 23 June 2008 they had been convicted of illegal entry. Yet they had not been released and Abdolkhani and/et Karimnia –

Turkey/Turquie - 30471/08 Judgment/Arrêt 22.9.2009 [Section II]

Facts – The applicants were Iranian nationals and members of the People’s Mojahedin Organisation (“the PMOI”). They left Iran on unspecified dates and stayed in a PMOI camp in Iraq until they decided to leave the PMOI and entered a refugee camp set up by the United States forces in Iraq.

They were recognised as refugees by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which considered that their links to the PMOI and their political opinions put them at risk of arbitrary deprivation of life or detention and ill-treatment in Iran. They then tried to enter Turkey. An initial attempt ended in their arrest and return to Iraq without their being able to explain their situation to border officials or, it would appear, any formal decision being taken to deport them. They immediately re-entered Turkey, but on 21 June 2008 were re-arrested and detained.

Although they made statements to both the gendarmerie and the court explaining that they feared for their lives in Iran, they were convicted of illegal entry into Turkey, with sentence deferred for five years, and the Turkish authorities made an (unsuccessful) attempt to deport them to Iran on 28 June 2008, without notifying them of the decision or the reasons for their deportation. Two days later the applicants obtained an interim measure from the European Court under Rule 39.

They were transferred to a Foreigners’ Admission and Accommodation Centre in September 2008.

Law – Article 3: As regards the risks of ill-treatment in the event of deportation to Iran, the Court noted reports from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the UNHCR Resettlement Service about PMOI members in Iran either being executed or found dead in suspicious circumstances in prison. Unlike the Turkish authorities, the UNHCR had interviewed the applicants and had had the opportunity to test the credibility of their fears and the veracity of their account and had found that they risked arbitrary deprivation of life, detention and ill-treatment in their country of origin. There were thus serious reasons to believe that former or current PMOI members and sympathisers could be killed and ill-treated in Iran and that the applicants had been affiliated to that organisation. As to the risks in Iraq, it was noted that the removal of Iranian nationals to that country by the Turkish authorities was carried out in the absence of a proper legal procedure.

Furthermore, evidence before the Court from

(17)

17 Article 5 – Article 6 § 1 (civil)

ARTICLE 6

Article 6 § 1 (civil) Access to court/Accès à un tribunal Fair hearing/Procès équitable

Right of access to court of prisoner held in high- security wing of prison to assert rights of a civil nature: violation

Accès à un tribunal pour contester des droits de caractère civil d’un détenu affecté à un secteur de la prison au niveau de surveillance élevé : violation

Enea – Italy/Italie - 74912/01 Judgment/Arrêt 17.9.2009 [GC]

En fait – Le requérant fut condamné à trente ans de réclusion criminelle, notamment pour appar- tenance à une association de malfaiteurs de type mafieux. En août 1994, compte tenu de sa dangerosité, le ministre de la Justice prit un arrêté le soumettant, pour une période d’un an, au régime spécial de détention prévu par l’article 41 bis, alinéa 2, de la loi sur l’administration pénitentiaire lorsque des raisons d’ordre et de sécurité publics l’exigent. L’arrêté imposait diverses restrictions en termes de visites, d’activités et de contrôle de la correspondance. L’application du régime spécial fut prorogée jusque fin 2005 par dix-neuf arrêtés portant chacun sur une période limitée. Le requérant introduisit plusieurs recours devant le tribunal de l’application des peines qui, à trois occasions, décida d’assouplir certaines des restrictions qui lui étaient imposées. L’un des recours déclaré irrecevable le fut au motif que la période d’application de l’arrêté avait expiré et que, de ce fait, le requérant avait perdu tout intérêt à l’examen du recours. Enfin, le tribunal ordonna la révocation du régime spécial et, en mars 2005, le requérant fut placé dans un secteur à niveau de surveillance élevé (« EIV »), où certains détenus très dangereux sont gardés à l’écart des autres détenus.

La décision de placement dans ce secteur ne peut être contestée en soi.

Le requérant est atteint de plusieurs pathologies qui l’ont obligé à utiliser un fauteuil roulant. De juin 2000 à février 2005, il a purgé sa peine dans la section du service médical de la prison destinée aux détenus soumis au régime spécial de détention.

En octobre 2008, le tribunal de l’application des peines ordonna la suspension de l’exécution de la from then on had not been detained on any

criminal charge, but in the context of immigration control. In the absence of a reply from the Government or any document in the case file to show that the applicants had been informed of the grounds for their continued detention after 23 June 2008, the Court concluded that the national authorities had never actually communicated the reasons to them.

Article 5 § 4: Given the findings that the applicants had been denied legal assistance and had not been informed of the reasons for their detention, the applicants’ right to appeal against their detention had been deprived of all effective substance. Nor had the Government submitted that the applicants had at their disposal any procedure through which the lawfulness of their detention could have been examined by a court. The Court therefore concluded that the Turkish legal system had not provided the applicants with a remedy whereby they could obtain judicial review of their detention.

Article 41: EUR 20,000 each in respect of non- pecuniary damage.

ARTICLE 5

Article 5 § 1

Liberty of person/Liberté physique

Failure to conduct effective investigation into arguable claim that missing Greek Cypriots may have been detained during Turkish military operations in northern Cyprus in 1974: violation Absence d’enquête effective sur des allégations défendables selon lesquelles des Chypriotes grecs disparus auraient été détenus pendant les opérations militaires turques conduites dans le nord de Chypre en 1974 : violation

(See Article 2 above/Voir l’article 2 ci-dessus)

(18)

18 Article 6 § 1 (civil)

des Ministres. Bien que cette dernière ne soit pas juridiquement contraignante à l’égard des Etats membres, la grande majorité de ceux-ci recon- naissent aux détenus la plupart des droits auxquels elle se réfère et prévoient des moyens de recours contre les mesures qui les restreignent. Il s’ensuit que l’on peut parler, en l’espèce, de l’existence d’une « contestation sur des droits ». En outre, certaines des limitations alléguées par le requérant, comme celles visant ses contacts avec sa famille et celles ayant une retombée patrimoniale, relèvent assurément des droits de la personne et, partant, revêtent un caractère civil. Cela étant, il est indispensable qu’un Etat garde une marge de manœuvre quant aux moyens visant à assurer la sécurité et l’ordre dans le difficile contexte carcéral.

Mais toute restriction touchant les droits de caractère civil de l’individu doit pouvoir être contestée dans le cadre d’une procédure judiciaire, et ce en raison de la nature des limitations ainsi que des répercussions qu’elles peuvent entraîner.

C’est par cette voie que peut se réaliser le juste équilibre entre, d’une part, la prise en compte des contraintes du monde carcéral auxquelles doit faire face l’Etat et, d’autre part, la protection des droits du détenu. Partant, ce grief est compatible ratione materiae avec les dispositions de la Convention dès lors qu’il a trait à l’article 6 sous son volet civil.

Conclusion : recevable (seize voix contre une).

ii. Fond : s’il est vrai que la décision de placement dans un secteur EIV ne peut être contestée en soi par le détenu qui souhaiterait remettre en question son bien-fondé, toute limitation d’un droit de caractère civil, affectant par exemple les visites des membres de la famille ou la correspondance d’un détenu, peut, quant à elle, faire l’objet d’un recours devant les juridictions de l’application des peines.

Dès lors qu’en l’espèce la décision de placement n’a entraîné aucune limitation de ce genre, même l’éventuelle absence de pareil recours n’aurait pu passer pour un déni d’accès à un tribunal.

Conclusion : non-violation (unanimité).

Article 8 : a) Période d’août 1994 à juillet 2004 – Il y a eu ingérence d’une autorité publique dans l’exercice du droit du requérant au respect de sa correspondance. Le contrôle de la correspondance du requérant d’août 1994 à juillet 2004 n’était pas prévu par la loi, dans la mesure où la loi appliquée en l’espèce ne réglemente ni la durée des mesures de contrôle de la correspondance des détenus ni les motifs pouvant justifier lesdites mesures, et n’indique pas avec assez de clarté l’étendue et les modalités d’exercice du pouvoir d’appréciation des autorités compétentes dans le domaine considéré.

peine de prison en raison de son état de santé. Il est depuis détenu à domicile.

En droit – Article 3 : les restrictions imposées au requérant du fait du régime spécial de détention étaient nécessaires pour empêcher l’intéressé, socialement dangereux, de garder des contacts avec l’organisation criminelle à laquelle il appartient.

Cependant, les juges de l’application des peines ont annulé ou assoupli certaines restrictions. En outre, les autorités nationales ont satisfait à leur obligation de protéger l’intégrité physique du requérant, en suivant attentivement l’évolution de son état de santé, en évaluant la gravité de ses pathologies, en lui administrant les soins médicaux appropriés et en ordonnant son hospitalisation le cas échéant. Ainsi, le traitement dont le requérant a fait l’objet n’a pas excédé le niveau inévitable de souffrance inhérent à la détention.

Conclusion : non-violation (quinze voix contre deux).

Article 6 § 1 : a) Concernant les restrictions au droit à un tribunal pendant la période d’application du régime spécial de détention – Un détenu soumis au régime spécial de détention dispose de dix jours à compter de la date de la communication de l’arrêté ministériel pour former une réclamation sans effet suspensif devant le tribunal de l’application des peines. Ce dernier doit à son tour statuer dans un délai de dix jours, fixé en raison, d’une part, de la gravité des effets du régime spécial sur les droits du détenu et, d’autre part, de la validité limitée dans le temps de la décision attaquée. Le tribunal a rejeté l’un des recours du requérant plus de quatre mois après son introduction au motif que l’arrêté litigieux avait expiré. Ainsi, l’absence de toute décision sur le fond a vidé de sa substance le contrôle exercé par le juge sur cet arrêté.

Conclusion : violation (unanimité).

b) Concernant les restrictions au droit à un tribunal pendant la période de placement dans un secteur EIV i. Recevabilité : le volet pénal de l’article 6 § 1 n’entre pas en jeu, le contentieux pénitentiaire ne concernant pas en principe le bien-fondé d’une

« accusation en matière pénale ». En revanche, la question de l’accès à un tribunal compétent pour juger du placement dans un secteur EIV et des restrictions qui pourraient l’accompagner doit être analysée sous le volet civil de l’article 6 § 1. La plupart des restrictions que le requérant allègue avoir subies concernent un ensemble de droits que le Conseil de l’Europe a reconnus aux détenus au moyen des Règles pénitentiaires européennes précisées dans une recommandation du Comité