CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 octobre 1999

.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 11 October 1999 Riera Blume and Others v. Spain - 37680/97 Judgment 14.10.1999 [Section IV] Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Suspected members of a sect held in a hotel against their will in order to undergo "de-programming": violation Article 9 Article 9-1 Freedom of thought Suspected members of a sect held in a hotel against their will in order to undergo "de-programming": violation (Extract from press release) Facts : The applicants, Ms Elena Riera Blume, Ms Concepción Riera Blume, Ms Maria Luz Casado Perez, Ms Daria Amelia Casado Perez, Ms   Maria Teresa Sales Aige and Mr Javier Bruna Reverter, were born in 1954, 1952, 1950, 1950, 1951 and 1957 respectively and live in Valencia (Spain). On 20 June 1984, during a preliminary judicial investigation, the homes of the applicants, who were thought to be members of a sect, were searched. The applicants were arrested and transferred to the Barcelona investigating court, where a judge decided to release them but gave oral instructions that they should be handed over to their families, to whom it should be suggested that it would be as well to have them interned in a psychiatric centre. That decision was subsequently confirmed in writing. The applicants were then transferred from the court to the premises of the Public Safety Department of the Generalitat (government) of Catalonia on the orders of its Director-General and, on 21 June 1984, were taken by members of the Catalan police in official vehicles to a hotel some thirty kilometres from Barcelona. There they were handed over to their families and taken to individual rooms with firmly closed windows, where they were kept under constant supervision; they were not allowed to leave the rooms for the first three days. They were subjected to a process of “deprogramming” by a psychologist and a psychiatrist. On 29 and 30 June 1984, after being informed of their rights, they were questioned by the Assistant Director-General of Public Safety in the presence of a lawyer not appointed by them and on 30 June 1984 they left the hotel. As soon as they had regained their freedom, they lodged a criminal complaint alleging, among other things, false imprisonment against the Director-General, the Assistant Director-General and a Public Safety Department official. At the end of the criminal proceedings that followed, the Barcelona Audiencia provincial acquitted the accused, holding that the acts complained of had been prompted by a philanthropic, legitimate and well-intentioned motive, so that the offence of false imprisonment was not made out. Appeals lodged by the prosecution and the applicants, and an amparo appeal by the applicants to the Constitutional Court were all dismissed. The applicants complained of the unlawfulness of their deprivation of liberty and of the interference with their right to freedom of thought, contrary to Articles 5 and 9 of the Convention. Law : Article 5 § 1 - The Court considered that the applicants’ transfer to the hotel by the Catalan police and their subsequent confinement to the hotel for ten days had amounted in fact, on account of the restrictions placed on the applicants, to a deprivation of liberty. The Court found that there had been no legal basis for that deprivation of liberty. It was therefore necessary to consider the part played by the Catalan authorities and to determine its extent. The Court considered that the national authorities had at all times acquiesced in the applicants’ loss of liberty. While it was true that it was the applicants’ families and the Pro Juventud association that had borne the direct and immediate responsibility for the supervision of the applicants during their ten days’ loss of liberty, it was equally true that without the active cooperation of the Catalan authorities the deprivation of liberty could not have taken place. As the ultimate responsibility for the matter complained of had thus lain with the authorities in question, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article   5 § 1 of the Convention. Conclusion : violation (unanimous). Article 9 - The applicants argued that the “deprogramming” measures to which they had been subjected during their detention had infringed Article 9 of the Convention. The Court observed that the applicants’ detention was at the core of the complaints under consideration. Having held that it had been arbitrary and hence unlawful for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the Court did not consider it necessary to undertake a separate examination of the case under Article 9.   © 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