CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 juillet 2004

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 67 August-September 2004 Slimani v. France - 57671/00 Judgment 27.7.2004 [Section II] Article 2 Article 2-1 Life Death in administrative detention centre and effectiveness of investigation: violation Article 13 Effective remedy Effective remedy in respect of death in detention Facts : The applicant’s partner, who was a Tunisian national living in France and the father of her children, had been permanently excluded from French territory. Pursuant to that measure, he was placed in the Marseille-Arenc Detention Centre for foreign nationals. He had previously been hospitalised on psychiatric grounds on several occasions and was under heavy medication. In the absence of a 24-hour medical service, medication was distributed by the police officers responsible for surveillance. On the fourth day of his detention, the applicant’s partner refused on two occasions to take his medication. He was in a state of extreme agitation. He was not examined by a doctor, since the Detention Centre had no medical facilities or personnel. He was taken ill, collapsed and, despite rapid medical treatment administered by a doctor who was called to the Centre, he died. An investigation was rapidly opened of their own motion by the judicial authorities to “establish the cause of death”. Numerous examinations, expert reports and tests were carried out and evidence was taken from eyewitnesses. These investigations revealed that death had been caused by acute pulmonary oedema. In the absence of any elements indicating that the death had been caused by a criminal action, the investigation concluded that no further action was to be taken. The applicant did not have access to the investigation file and was not informed of its outcome, as a deceased’s next-of-kin could not have access to proceedings to establish the cause of death. Law : Articles 2 and 3 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 – Before the Court, the applicant called into question the authorities’ responsibility in her partner’s death and complained about his detention conditions. However, the applicant could have lodged a criminal complaint, alleging murder, with an investigating judge, along with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party. That domestic remedy (see Article 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success. Accordingly, the applicant had not satisfied the obligation to exhaust domestic remedies laid down by Article   35 § 1 of the Convention. The Court concluded (by 5 votes to 2) that it could not consider the merits of the applicant’s complaints alleging a substantive violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention. Given the close affinities between Article 13 and Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court concluded unanimously that there had not been a violation of Article 13 taken together with Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention. Procedural requirements of Article 2   – In all cases where a prisoner dies in suspicious circumstances, Article 2 places on the authorities an obligation to carry out an “effective official investigation” of their own motion, as soon as the matter is brought to their attention, for the purpose of establishing the cause of death and identifying and punishing any liable parties. The investigation opened in the instant case to “establish the cause of death” was, in principle, an “official investigation” capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. As to the effectiveness of an investigation following the suspicious death of a person in official custody, the deceased’s next-of-kin must not be required to take the initiative in lodging a formal complaint or assuming responsibility for investigation proceedings. Article 2 requires that the deceased’s next-of-kin be automatically involved with the official investigation opened by the authorities into the cause of death and the person responsible. The deceased’s next-of-kin should not be required to lodge a criminal complaint beforehand. In the instant case, the applicant had been excluded from the investigation and had been obliged to lodge a complaint with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party in order to have access to it. In short, in the instant case, since the applicant had not been able automatically to have access to the inquiry into the cause of her partner’s death, the national investigation had not been “effective” for the purposes of Convention. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court held, unanimously, that in view of that finding it was not necessary for it to examine whether the procedural requirements of Article 3 had been satisfied. Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant a sum for non-pecuniary damage and a sum for costs and expenses.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes