CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 19 mai 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 64 May 2004 R.L. and M.-J.D. v. France - 44568/98 Judgment 19.5.2004 [Section III] Article 5 Article 5-1-e Persons of unsound mind Placement with psychiatric services of a restaurateur arrested during a dispute with a neighbouring restaurateur: violation Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Ill-treatment during police intervention in dispute in restaurant: violation Article 5 Article 5-5 Compensation Absence of right to compensation in respect of unlawful detention: violation Facts : Following a series of incidents with neighbouring restaurateurs, the applicants, owners of a restaurant in Paris, were summoned to the police station for making excessive noise at night. The applicants refused to attend. Three plain-clothes police officers then came to their restaurant and used force in disputed circumstances. The first applicant was finally arrested and taken to the police station. He was placed in a psychiatric unit overnight and released the following day. The applicants obtained medical certificates stating that they had sustained numerous bruises. They filed a criminal complaint together with an application to join the proceedings as civil parties. A judicial investigation was opened on charges of deprivation of liberty, unlawful arrest, arbitrary detention, unlawful violence, and abuse of authority. A medical report established the existence of multiple injuries leading to total unfitness for work for 10 days in the first applicant's case and 6 days in the second applicant's case. The investigating judge issued an order finding that there was no case to answer. The court of appeal upheld this order. In particular, it noted that the police officers had not committed deliberate or unjustified acts of violence, but had used force only on account of the resistance put up by the applicants, who were very agitated; the first applicant's agitation had been sufficiently severe to give rise to fears for the neighbouring restaurateurs' safety and to justify in law his transfer to a psychiatric unit. The applicants appealed unsuccessfully on points of law. Law: Article 3 – During their intervention, the police officers, without deliberately striking the applicants, had used force to bring them under control; the latter had put up resistance and fought. The bruises and swellings found on the applicants were too numerous and too large, and the resulting periods of unfitness for work too long to correspond to the use of force made absolutely necessary by the applicants' conduct. Conclusion : violation (four votes to three). Article 5 § 1 (c) – The first applicant had never been brought before a judge after his arrest. His arrest had not been justified in the light of the acts which could be held against him: the offence of committing a nuisance by making noise at night, which was punishable only by a fine, could not justify his arrest, and although the offence of insulting a police officer could have justified his arrest, the first applicant had not subsequently been prosecuted on that charge. Conclusion : violation (four votes to three). Article 5 § 1 (e) – The first applicant's continued detention in the psychiatric unit between 4.15 a.m. and 10.45 a.m. was explained only by the fact that the doctor was not empowered to release him; it had therefore had no medical justification. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 5 § 5 – In view of the above findings of violations of Article 5 § 1 (c) and (e), and since the applicant had not obtained satisfaction as a result of the domestic proceedings instituted by him, there had also been a breach of this provision. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – The Court awarded compensation for the physical and psychological damage sustained by the applicants. It made an award in respect of costs and expenses.   © 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