CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 29 septembre 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 122 August-September 2009 Van Melle and Others v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 19221/08 Decision 29.9.2009 [Section III] Article 3 Positive obligations Alleged failure to prosecute Government ministers following death of detainees in fire: inadmissible   Facts – In October 2005 eleven aliens who were being held in a detention centre pending deportation were killed in a fire. Technical investigations led to the finding that one of the detainees had started the fire by negligently tossing a burning cigarette into a waste paper basket. A letter was subsequently sent to the regional court public prosecutor calling for the prosecution of the Minister of Justice and Minister for Immigration and Integration. No prosecution was brought, however, as under domestic law a Royal Decree or decision of the Lower House of Parliament was required for the prosecution of a government minister. In the interim, an independent body, the Investigation Committee for Safety Issues, investigated the case. In a report it submitted to the Lower House of Parliament in September 2006, it stated that extensive testing indicated that the fire could well have been started by a cigarette end and that technical failure was so unlikely a cause as to be excluded. It nevertheless found fault with three Government institutions, including the Ministry of Justice (which was responsible for the technical specifications and for securing the safety of the detainees), but not the Ministry for Immigration and Integration. Following the publication of the report, which included recommendations to the three ministries found to have been at fault, two ministers, including the Minister of Justice, resigned on grounds of political responsibility. The detainee found to have set the waste paper basket alight, was tried for having started the fire through criminal negligence and convicted both at first instance and on appeal. An appeal to the Supreme Court is pending. Law – Article 3: The application was lodged by a total of forty-two applicants (an NGO, survivors and relatives of the deceased) and complained of the failure to prosecute the Minister of Justice and Minister for Immigration and Integration. The complaints of all but two of the applicants were declared inadmissible ratione personae or as being outside the six-month time-limit. As to the complaints of the remaining two applicants, who were next of kin, the Court noted that the existence of a credible assertion of treatment infringing Article   3 (which for present purposes, the Court assumed) did not necessarily entail an obligation to prosecute the persons whom the applicants wished to see held to account. More generally, where an infringement of the right to life or to physical integrity was not caused intentionally, the positive obligation imposed by Article   3 to set up an effective judicial system did not necessarily require the provision of a criminal-law remedy in every case. In the applicants’ case, moreover, an independent committee had investigated and produced a detailed, highly critical report, which the Court was prepared to accept as reliable, specifically identifying the Government institutions responsible for the failure to ensure the detainees’ safety. As a result, two of the ministers responsible had resigned on grounds of political responsibility. Accordingly, in so far as they were addressed directly to members of the Government at ministerial level, the procedural requirements of Article   3 had been satisfied. There was nothing in the application to suggest that the Minister of Justice – one of those who had resigned over the matter – and the Minister for Immigration and Integration had personally disregarded their duties to the point of criminal responsibility warranting prosecution. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).   © 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