CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 13 octobre 1988

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }    AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF     Application No. 12613/86 by Jan-Ove THÖGERSEN against Sweden             The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on 13 October 1988, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD, President                      J.A. FROWEIN                      S. TRECHSEL                      F. ERMACORA                      E. BUSUTTIL                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      J. CAMPINOS                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                      C.L. ROZAKIS                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY                   Mr.   H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission             Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;           Having regard to the application introduced on 3 November 1986 by Jan-Ove THÖGERSEN against Sweden and registered on 15 December 1986 under file No. 12613/86;           Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;           Having deliberated;           Decides as follows:     THE FACTS             The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.           The applicant is a Swedish citizen, born in 1956.   He is a student.   At the time of the introduction of his application the applicant was serving a prison sentence at the Skenäs Prison.           On 23 January 1985 the Göta Court of Appeal (Göta hovrätt) convicted the applicant of gross robbery.   He was given a sentence of four years' imprisonment.   The sentence commenced on 8 March 1985. The applicant was given a regular leave from prison of short duration from 6.50 a.m. on 30 April 1986 to 2.00 p.m. on 3 May 1986.   Certain conditions were attached to the leave.           From the minutes of an interrogation of the applicant on 5 May 1986 at the Skenäs Prison it appears that the conditions of the applicant's leave were that he should stay at Hotel Åberg at Tranås and that he was forbidden to consume narcotics or alcohol.   He was to be subjected to anti-alcohol treatment during the leave and, to get information about the treatment, he was obliged to phone the prison at 2.00 p.m. on 30 April 1986.   It was intended that he should visit the District Nurse at Tranås the following two days to show that he took Dipsan that had been given to him in prison.   The applicant did not phone the prison until 2 May 1986.   He was then instructed to go to the District Nurse.   The applicant returned to the prison within the fixed time-limit.   A prison guard got the impression that the applicant was not sober and a breath test confirmed this suspicion. According to the personnel at Hotel Åberg the applicant had not been staying there.   The District Nurse had not seen him.           When interrogated the applicant stated that he had tried to phone the prison several times in the hour set out without success. He denied that he had been drinking alcohol during his leave.   He claimed that he had stayed at Hotel Åberg and that he had taken his medecine alone as the nurse was not on duty.           On 5 May 1986 the Governor of the Skenäs Prison stated that in his opinion the applicant had shown misconduct while on leave.   He referred the matter to the National Prisons and Probation Administration (kriminalvårdsstyrelsen, hereinafter referred to as "NPPA").           On 16 May 1986 NPPA decided, under Section 39 of the 1974 Act on Treatment of Prisoners (lagen om kriminalvård i anstalt), that the first day and the last day (30 April and 3 May 1986) of the applicant's leave should not be counted as days served by the applicant.           As a consequence of this, on 20 May 1986, a new decision on the applicant's term of punishment was made by NPPA. In the calculation made in the decision four days were added to the original final date of the applicant's sentence.   The dates 30 April and 3 May 1986 were specially mentioned as being the reason for the prolongation. The last day of the applicant's sentence was decided to be 28 October 1988 and it was indicated in the decision that he would have served half of his sentence on 28 October 1986 and two-thirds of it on 30 June 1987.           The applicant appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal (kammarrätten) of Jönköping against the decisions of NPPA.   He contested that he had shown misconduct while on leave.   The Court rejected the appeal on 5 September 1986 on the following grounds.   "According to Section 39 of the Act on Treatment of Prisoners time spent outside the prison during a leave should be considered as time spent serving the prison sentence if no special circumstances militate against it.   From the documents in the case the following inter alia appears.   Thögersen was granted a regular leave from 30 April to 3 May 1986.   As conditions for the leave it was provided that he must not drink alcohol and he should phone the prison on 30 April 1986 at 2.00 p.m. for further information about an anti-alcohol treatment. From the documents it appears that Thögersen did not contact the prison until 2 May 1986.    The reasons Thögersen has given for this do not constitute an excuse for contacting the prison as late as was done.   In view of the observations of the prison guard L and the breath test, the Administrative Court of Appeal finds that, when Thögersen returned to prison on 3 May 1986, his breath smelled of alcohol.   Thögersen thus failed to fulfil the conditions provided for the leave.   The National Prisons and Probation Administration had reason not to consider 30 April and 3 May 1986 as forming part of the prison sentence served.   The term of punishment has been correctly calculated in the decision on the term of punishment."           The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (regeringsrätten), which in a decision of 14 October 1986 refused to grant leave to appeal.           The applicant was released from prison on 28 October 1986.   Relevant Domestic Law           In order to facilitate the reintegration of a prisoner into society Section 32 of the 1974 Act on Treatment of Prisoners provides that a prisoner may be granted permission to leave the prison for a short period of time (korttidspermission).   The condition is that there is no manifest risk of continued criminal activity and no considerable risk of some other kind of abuse.   A leave of short duration may also be granted if other special reasons exist.           Conditions considered to be necessary for short duration leave, for example as to place of residence or obligation to report during the leave, may be laid down.   If strict supervision is required it can be prescribed that the prisoner shall be under surveillance during his leave.           According to Section 39 of the Act, time spent on leave is to be considered as part of the time spent serving the prison sentence, if no special circumstances militate against it.           The Act also contains provisions for disciplinary punishment of prisoners who violate prison regulations or instructions, either within the prison or outside the prison while under the supervision of personnel employed by NPPA.   Disciplinary punishment may according to Section 47 be inflicted if there is no reason to assume that the prisoner in question will abide by an instruction or an order or if the breach is such that punishment is required for maintaining order and security within the prison.           The disciplinary punishment can be either a warning or an order that a certain period of time, not more than ten days, shall be considered not to form part of the sentence served by the prisoner. Time thus added to a prison sentence may never exceed forty-five days in total.           A decision under Section 39 of the Act on Treatment of Prisoners, that time spent on leave shall not be considered as time served, is taken by NPPA.    The Governor of a prison may decide on disciplinary punishment under Section 47 but his decision should be referred to NPPA for review.   Appeals against the decisions of NPPA can be lodged with the Administrative Court of Appeal and from there to the Supreme Administrative Court.           When a prisoner has started serving his sentence, NPPA shall, according to Section 20 of the 1974 Act on Determination of Terms of Punishment (lagen om beräkning av strafftid), determine the last day of the prison sentence.   If a decision is subsequently taken under the Act on Treatment of Prisoners, that a certain period of time should not be considered as part of the sentence served by the prisoner, NPPA shall add that time to the day previously determined and thus determine a new final date of the prison sentence.   The decision of NPPA can be appealed to the Administrative Court of Appeal and from there an appeal lies to the Supreme Administrative Court.           As a general rule Chapter 26 Section 6 of the Penal Code (brottsbalken) provides that a prisoner sentenced to imprisonment for a fixed period of time shall be released on probation after having served half his sentence.   As an exception to this rule it is laid down in Section 7 that a prisoner sentenced to two years' imprisonment or more, after being convicted of a serious crime directed against or causing a risk for life or health, if there is a serious risk that he will continue to commit the same kind of crime, must not be released on probation until he has served two thirds of his sentence.   When a decision on release on probation is taken under Section 7, apart from the risk for relapse into crime, the effects of a continued deprivation of liberty for the prisoner, as well as his possibilities for rehabilitation, should be taken into consideration.   Decisions under Section 7 are taken by the National Parole Board (kriminalvårdsnämnden).   COMPLAINTS           The applicant complains that as a result of the decisions of NPPA, the first of which according to the applicant was made under Section 47 of the Act on Treatment of Prisoners, four days were added to the sentence of imprisonment he was already serving.   He claims that his detention pursuant to those decisions was a deprivation of liberty not covered by any of the exceptions to the right to liberty set out in Article 5 para. 1 (a) - (f) of the Convention.   He alleges a violation of Article 5 para. 1 of the Convention.     THE LAW           The applicant complains that his detention pursuant to the decisions of NPPA was a deprivation of liberty not covered by any of the exceptions to the right to liberty set out in Article 5 para. 1 (a) - (f) (Art. 5-1-a-f) of the Convention.   He alleges a violation of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention, which, insofar as relevant, provides:   "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:   a. the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;   ..."           Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) will only apply to the sanction imposed by NPPA if that sanction constitutes a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 (Art. 5).           The Commission recalls the case of Campbell and Fell (cf. Eur. Court H.R., Campbell and Fell judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80 p. 38, para. 72) in which the Court found that Mr.   Campbell's forfeiture of remission (in total 570 days) was a sanction "that came close to, even if it did not technically constitute, deprivation of liberty".   The Court also found that the legal basis for the detention of Mr.   Campbell was the original sentence of imprisonment.   For other reasons the disciplinary punishment imposed on Mr.   Campbell was considered to involve a criminal charge, making Article 6 (Art. 6) of the Convention applicable in that case.           In the present case, the Commission recalls that the sanction imposed on the applicant was that at most four days were added to the time he had to serve in prison.   According to the provisions on release on probation laid down in the Penal Code, the applicant would be released on probation after having served half or two-thirds of his sentence of four years, and in fact he was released on 28 October 1986 after having served half of his sentence.   Consequently, the effect of adding four days to the term of the applicant's sentence did not bring the detention beyond the period of four years authorised by the Court of Appeal's judgment.           The Commission considers the sanction imposed on the applicant by NPPA to be purely disciplinary.   The sentence by the Göta Court of Appeal was, even after the decision on disciplinary punishment, the legal basis for the detention of the applicant.   Consequently, the entire detention of the applicant was justified under Article 5 para. 1 (a) (Art. 5-1-a) of the Convention.           The disciplinary sanction does not therefore result in a separate deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 para. 1 (Art. 5-1) of the Convention.           It follows that the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.           For these reasons, the Commission           DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.              Secretary of the Commission            President of the Commission                     (H. C. KRUGER)                        (C. A. NØRGAARD)