CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 septembre 2010

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 133 August-September 2010 Steindel v. Germany (dec.) - 29878/07 Decision 14.9.2010 [Section V] Article 4 Article 4-2 Forced labour Obligation on medical practitioner to participate in emergency-service scheme: inadmissible   Facts – The applicant is an ophthalmologist in private practice. In his application to the Court, he complained that he was under a statutory obligation to participate in an emergency-service scheme organised by a public body, the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, despite the fact that he was not a member of that body and did not practice under the public-health insurance scheme. Under the scheme, medical practitioners are required to spend six days out of every three months on emergency duties. Failure to discharge their obligations can lead to disciplinary action. Participants are remunerated for their work and released from the obligation to provide a round-the-clock service to their patients. Law – Article 4: The provisions of Article 4 §   3   (d), which exclude “any work or service which forms part of normal civil obligations” from the scope of forced or compulsory labour, was of special significance in the applicant’s case. The services to be rendered under the emergency scheme did not fall outside the ambit of a physician’s normal professional activities and usual work. They were remunerated and, in principle, released the practitioner from the obligation to be available for his patients outside consultation hours (although the applicant chose not to make use of that option). The obligation was part of a scheme that had been devised to unburden all practising physicians from the duty to be available at nights and on weekends while at the same time ensuring the provision of medical services at such times. It was thus founded on a concept of professional and civil solidarity aimed at averting emergencies. Finally, the burden of six days’ service over a three-month period imposed on the applicant was not disproportionate. The services the applicant was required to perform did not, therefore, amount to “compulsory or forced labour”. Conclusion : inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded). The Court also dismissed as being manifestly ill-founded the applicant’s complaints under Article   14, in conjunction with Article   4, and under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1.   © 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