CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 2 octobre 2012

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 156 October 2012 L.B. v. Belgium - 22831/08 Judgment 2.10.2012 [Section II] Article 5 Article 5-1-e Persons of unsound mind Seven-year detention in prison psychiatric wings despite authorities’ insistence on need for placement in structure adapted to applicant’s pathology: violation Facts – The applicant was convicted in 1986 and 1995 of theft and possession of weapons. In 1997 he was convicted of raping his daughter and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment; after completing his sentence he was kept in prison on the basis, in particular, of medical reports establishing that he represented a danger to society and because he had breached the conditions of his release on licence. In 2004, further to a decision of the Social Protection Commission ( Commission de défense sociale – “CDS”), he was interned in the psychiatric wing of a prison. In spite of efforts by the applicant himself, together with medical and psychiatric reports and opinions by the CDS indicating that the treatment provided to him was ill-adapted to his situation and that he should be admitted as an in-patient to a specialised institution, he was kept in the psychiatric wing of a prison. Law – Article 5 § 1 (e): The applicant had not been provided with appropriate care in the prison’s psychiatric wing. The CDS had always maintained that the applicant’s internment in the psychiatric wings of prisons was provisional, until a better adapted structure could be found. Until the pre-therapy started in 2011, and except for the hormonal treatment administered in 2008 for the applicant’s chemical castration, there had been no question of personalised therapeutic care or medical follow-up inside the prison with a view to improving the applicant’s situation. In addition, this was not an isolated case. The provision of psychiatric care had been sadly lacking, for both interned individuals and ordinary prisoners, and the situation had constantly worsened on account of the prison overcrowding. That state of affairs had been observed by the domestic authorities and by numerous international organisations. Admittedly, efforts had regularly been made by the Belgian authorities, in addition to those made by the applicant himself, with a view to his admission to a private psychiatric institution, as an inpatient or outpatient. However, whilst the persistent attitude of a detainee might contribute to preventing any change in his detention regime, that did not dispense the authorities from taking the appropriate initiatives to provide the applicant with treatment that was adapted to his state of health and was likely to help him regain his freedom. In the present case the applicant’s state of health had improved, on the whole, realistic prospects of re-adaptation had been put forward by the competent authorities, one temporary solution had proved successful and adapted structures were available. In reality it appeared that the structural lack of space in such institutions and their private-law status had been the main obstacles to the applicant’s admission. Therefore, as a result of the maintaining of the applicant for seven years in a prison institution, when all the medical and psychiatric or social workers’ opinions and competent authorities agreed that it was ill-adapted to his condition and re-adaptation, the conditions of the detention had been incompatible with its purpose. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicant’s transfer to a suitable institution would constitute the most appropriate means of remedying the violation. (See, by way of comparison, De Shepper v. Belgium , no.   27428/07, 13   October 2009, Information Note no.   123 )   © 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