CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 novembre 2003

.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 58 November 2003 Worwa v. Poland - 26624/95 Judgment 27.11.2003 [Section III] Article 8 Article 8-1 Respect for private life Successive psychiatric examinations at short intervals in connection with similar criminal cases before the same court: violation Facts : The applicant was the subject of a number of criminal proceedings in connection with a dispute with neighbours over an easement. The prosecuting authorities decided on several occasions to require the applicant to undergo a psychiatric examination. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure then applicable, any accused person could be required to undergo a medical examination. Consequently, the applicant was arrested on 12 October 1994 for failing to comply with the court order requiring him to attend for a medical examination. The examinations of the applicant’s mental state took place on 12 October 1994, 8 February and 6 March 1996, and then on 28 August 1996. The applicant was also ordered to attend and then sent away without having been examined. In different proceedings, the prosecutor ordered a further examination of the same type, on 12 February 1998. The applicant was eventually convicted of insulting behaviour, throwing stones and carrying out renovation work without prior authorisation. Law : Article 5 § 1 (b) – The applicant’s arrest on 12 October 1994 followed two unsuccessful attempts to have him attend an initial medical examination in the course of proceedings brought against him. There is nothing to support his claim that this arrest was not “lawful”. Conclusion : no violation (unanimous). Article 8 – Right to respect for family life : There is no evidence in the file on which the Court can find that, as the applicant claims, his ten-year-old daughter was present when he was arrested on 12 October 1994 and taken to the psychiatric consultation. Accordingly, there has been no interference by the public authority with the applicant’s family life. Conclusion : no violation (unanimous). Right to respect for private life : The fact of ordering medical reports on the applicant’s mental state, at very brief intervals and in similar cases before the same court, constitutes an “interference” with the applicant’s private life. That interference was in accordance with the law. Although a psychiatric report is a necessary measure, the State authorities must ensure that that measure does not upset the fair balance that must be ensured between the right to respect for the individual’s private life and the proper administration of justice. In this case, the judicial authorities of the same court ordered the applicant on several occasions to undergo psychiatric examinations at brief intervals and asked him to attend when no consultation had been arranged on the appointed day. In those circumstances, the interference was not justified. Conclusion : violation (unanimous). Article 41 – The Court awards the applicant €3,000 for non-pecuniary harm.   © 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