CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 octobre 2000

.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 23 October 2000 Koniarska v. the United Kingdom (dec.) - 33670/96 Decision 12.10.2000 [Section II] Article 5 Article 5-1-d Minors Minor suffering from mental disorder kept in secure accommodation until reaching age of majority: inadmissible In March 1995, the applicant, then aged 17, was convicted of common assault, criminal damage and affray. In accordance with the Mental Act 1983, an interim hospital order was issued and the applicant was transferred to hospital to be examined. While a consultant psychiatrist established that she suffered from a psychopathic disorder, her solicitor’s own psychiatrist reached the opposite conclusion. In August 1995, the applicant was discharged from hospital. Since 1994, she had been kept under a care order by the local authority, which exercised parental rights over her. In November 1995, the applicant was placed in secure accommodation until February 1996 at the local authority’s request, since it was considered that she was likely to injure herself or others. She was sent to an institution specialised in the handling of seriously disturbed children. She attended classes there and took part in self-assessment programmes. Before the expiry of the order, an order prolonging her placement in secure accommodation until the age of majority was made by at the request of the local authority. Inadmissible under Article 5 § 1 (d) [ and (e)]: The applicant was diagnosed as suffering from a psychopathic disorder and it was established that she represented a threat to herself as well as to others. Her detention being covered by Article 5 § 1 (d), it was no longer relevant to determine whether it was encompassed by Article 5 § 1 (e). The former present provision authorises the detention of minors for the purpose of educational supervision. The applicant having been a minor throughout the whole period in issue, it had to be determined whether her detention served the purpose of educational supervision. The detention orders were made in the context of a long history of effort to ensure the best up-bringing for the applicant. The care order she was subject to and the application for a secure accommodation order were the local authorities’ way of keeping her in safe surroundings which appeared necessary given her mental condition. As regards the detention of minors, educational supervision should not be equated rigidly with notions of classroom teaching. In the context of a young person in the local authority care, educational supervision must embrace many aspects of the exercise by the local authorities of parental rights for the benefit and protection of the person concerned. The court orders in the present case constituted part of the educational supervision of the applicant. The institution where she was sent was a specialised residential facility for seriously disturbed children. She attended classes and took part in life skills and social skills programmes. Overall, it could be considered that her detention was for the purpose of educational supervision: 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