CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 1 juin 2004

.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 } .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 } .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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 65 June 2004 Van der Graaf v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 8704/03 Decision 1.6.2004 [Section II] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Placement of detainee under permanent camera surveillance: inadmissible On 6 May 2002 the applicant was arrested and taken into custody on suspicion of having shot and killed a well-known politician. The applicant was placed under permanent camera surveillance. The governor of the remand centre considered that such a measure was necessary given the reaction of society to the applicant’s offence, as well as to prevent any risk of suicide or other harm to the applicant. The applicant’s appeals against the successive orders to prolong his permanent camera surveillance were accepted as well-founded. The courts found that there was no legal basis for imposing such a measure, given the applicant’s individual detention regime. On 5 July 2002 an amendment was introduced to the relevant prison regulations, whereby it also became possible to place detainees who were under an individual detention regime under permanent camera surveillance. On that same day, the governor issued a new order for the applicant’s camera surveillance. The applicant’s appeal was this time rejected as the measure had a sufficient legal basis in the amended rules. Moreover, a balance had been struck between the interference in the applicant’s private sphere and the social unrest that could arise if the applicant escaped or his health was harmed. Inadmissible under Article 3: Whilst being permanently observed by a camera for a period of about four and a half months may have caused the applicant feelings of distress for lack of any form of privacy, it had not been sufficiently established that such a measure had in fact subjected the applicant to mental suffering of a level of severity such as to constitute inhuman or degrading treatment: manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 8: The placing of the applicant under permanent camera surveillance constituted a serious interference with his right to respect for his private life. However, the measure had a basis in domestic law and pursued the legitimate aim of preventing the applicant’s escape or harm to his health. Given the great public unrest caused by the applicant’s offence and the importance of bringing him to trial, the interference complained of could be regarded as necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety and the prevention of disorder and crime: 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