CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 6 septembre 2016

.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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .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 199 August-September 2016 W.D. v. Belgium - 73548/13 Judgment 6.9.2016 [Section II] Article 46 Pilot judgment General measures Respondent State required to reduce number of detainees held in prison psychiatric wings without access to suitable therapeutic treatment Article 3 Degrading treatment Structural problem resulting in detention for more than nine years in psychiatric wing of prison with no prospect of change or appropriate medical help: violation Facts – The applicant, who is classified by the authorities as having a “mental disability”, has been detained continuously since 2007 in a prison social protection unit for acts held to constitute sexual assault. He complains that besides access to the prison psychiatric service, he has not been given any treatment or personalised medical support. Furthermore, because of the refusal of residential care centres and psychiatric hospitals to admit him, he has remained in detention without any realistic prospect of treatment in an outside institution, and thus without any hope of reintegrating into the community. Law – Article 3 ( substantive aspect ): Without underestimating the efforts made by the authorities to find an outside facility to provide care for the applicant, they had nevertheless proved to no avail because the institutions contacted had refused to admit him. This detrimental situation for the applicant was in reality the result of a structural problem. On the one hand, the medical care available to those detained in prison psychiatric wings was inadequate, and on the other, placement outside the prison system was often impossible, either because of the lack of available or suitable places in psychiatric hospitals or because the legislative framework did not allow the social protection authorities to order the admission of such individuals to outside facilities that regarded them as undesirable. The national authorities had not taken sufficient care of the applicant’s health to ensure that he was not left in a situation breaching Article 3 of the Convention. His continued detention for more than nine years in a prison environment without suitable treatment for his mental condition or any prospect of social reintegration amounted to degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 5 §   1   (e) of the Convention in that the applicant’s detention for more than nine years in a facility ill-suited to his condition had broken the link required by Article 5 § 1 (e) between the purpose and the practical conditions of detention, and a violation of Article 5 §   4 in the absence of an effective remedy capable in practice of affording redress for the situation of which he was the victim and preventing the continuation of the alleged violations. Article 41: EUR 16,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. Article 46: The Court decided to apply the pilot-judgment procedure in the present case, bearing in mind the number of individuals potentially concerned in Belgium and the findings of violations to which their applications could give rise. The Belgian State had already taken significant measures in the context of a wide-ranging reform of mental health care and psychiatric detention. Such measures were likely to alleviate the phenomenon of the continued detention in a prison environment of offenders with mental disorders and the ensuing consequences. The Court welcomed the steps taken and planned by the national authorities and could only encourage the Belgian State to continue its efforts. The Court encouraged the Belgian State to take action to reduce the number of offenders with mental disorders who were detained in prison psychiatric wings without receiving appropriate treatment, in particular by redefining the criteria justifying psychiatric detention, along the lines envisaged by the legislative reform under way in Belgium. In the same vein, the Court welcomed the objective, now enshrined in law, of providing appropriate therapeutic support to psychiatric detainees with a view to their reintegration into the community. The respondent Government were given a period of two years to remedy both the general situation, in particular by taking steps to implement the legislative reform, and the situation of any applicants who had lodged similar applications with the Court before the delivery of the judgment in the present case and any who might apply to the Court subsequently. For present and future applicants, redress could be afforded through ad hoc measures that could be specified in friendly settlements or unilateral declarations adopted in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Convention. Accordingly, pending the adoption of remedial measures, proceedings in all similar cases were adjourned for two years with effect from the date on which the judgment in the present case became final. (See L.B. v. Belgium , 22831/08, 2   October 2012, Information   Note 156 ; Claes v. Belgium , 43418/09, 10   January 2013, Information Note 159 ; Bamouhammad v. Belgium , 47687/13, 17   November 2015, Information   Note 190 ; and Murray v. the Netherlands [GC], 10511/10, 26   April 2016, Information   Note 195 )   © 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