CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 30 avril 2013

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s25DB3F80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s67F06EFC { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#000000 } .s42BBCF49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s8DE33171 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sAF6BE0DA { text-align:left; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s38F34D94 { width:22.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8AFB426F { width:32.67pt; display:inline-block } .sF7B31841 { text-align:left; font-family:serif; font-size:10pt; list-style-position:inside } .sDA7C1CED { width:26.4pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .s919E91DC { width:32.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB8467130 { width:24.88pt; display:inline-block } .sB0867025 { margin-left:13.34pt; text-align:left; padding-left:22.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s779EB7AA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)76 Reynolds contre le Royaume-Uni Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 2694/08, arrêt du 13 mars 2012, définitif le 13 juin 2012)   (adoptée par le Comité de Ministres le 30 avril 2013, lors de la 1169e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)     Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «   la Convention   » et «   la Cour   »),   Vu l’arrêt définitif, qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée   ;   Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe   1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire   :   -           de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum   ; et -           de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;   Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer à l’obligation susmentionnée   ;   Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)271E )   ;   S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées,   DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.   Action report Reynolds v UK (application No. 2694/08; final judgment on 13/06/2012) (anglais seulement)     Case summary                   Case description:   -   The death of a mental health patient led to a case being brought by the applicant (initially the patient’s mother, then, after her death, the patient’s sister). They argued that the lack of civil proceedings available in the UK with regards to compensation for the patient’s death due to a failure to take reasonable steps to prevent his suicide was a breach of Article 2 (right to life) and 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   -   The patient had a history of schizophrenia and was known to local mental health services. He suffered a relapse of his psychotic symptoms, which included hearing voices telling him to kill himself. He was assessed as a low suicide risk and transferred as a voluntary patient by the South West Yorkshire NHS Trust to an Intensive Support Moving on Scheme (ISMOS) Unit for which the local authority was responsible. At one point during the evening before he died, he was found wandering outside the Unit and was encouraged by staff to return, which he did. The patient later broke a sixth floor window in the Unit from which he fell to his death.   -   The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 13 in conjunction with Article 2 as                     there was an arguable claim that the position of the patient was such that an operational duty arose to take reasonable steps to protect him from a real and immediate risk of suicide and that that duty was not fulfilled;                   and there were no civil domestic proceedings available to his mother to establish any liability and compensation due as regards non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of her son’s death. Individual measures   2.   The case concerned only the question of the lack of civil proceedings available to the applicant to establish liability and compensation for the non-pecuniary damage suffered as a result of her son’s death. In this respect, noting that the applicant had had the benefit of a detailed inquest which had elucidated the central facts of the case but considering that nevertheless the lack of a civil remedy had likely caused her some frustration and distress, the Court awarded the applicant non-pecuniary damages of EUR 7 000. No further individual measures appear necessary.   General measures   3.   General measures :   -                       Corrective action in response to the judgment has been taken by the local agencies involved. In the light of the information obtained at the inquest, the Coroner was concerned that a psychiatric facility had been located on the sixth floor of a building and has reported the incident to the NHS Trust under Rule 43 of the Coroner’s Rules 1984. We understand that the windows have since been reinforced and that the longer-term plan is to transfer the ISMOS Unit to a two-storey building.   -           A relevant case was decided by the Supreme Court in March 2012, before judgment in the Reynolds case was given, but after the pleadings had been submitted. The case of Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012]UKSC 2 held that on the particular facts of the case, the NHS Trust had an operational duty and Article 2 did apply even though the patient had been an informal patient and not compulsorily detained. The Supreme Court held that the parents of the deceased had a claim under article 2 for damages for non-pecuniary loss for bereavement and awarded the parents £5 000 each. The judgment may be found at:   http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/UKSC_2010_0154_Judgment.pdf -                       The UK considers that the Supreme Court has now made clear that an action could be brought under Article 2 seeking compensation for non-pecuniary damages. Whether it would be successful would depend on the specific facts of the case. -                         -                       The government therefore considers that no further general measures are needed.   4.   Publication and dissemination:   -                       The judgment has been published on : -                       http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/437.html -                       http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Reynolds_v_UK_2694/08_(2012)_ECHR_437,_(2012)_MHLO_30 -                       The NHS Litigation Authority was the defendant in the case of Rabone and they have disseminated the judgment in that case to all the relevant NHS bodies.   State of execution of judgment:   -   The government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed.