CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 octobre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   665 9.10.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SAOUD v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Saoud v. France (application no. 9375/02).   The Court held unanimously: that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the authorities’ failure to fulfil their obligation to protect the life of Mohamed Saoud; that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention on account of the fact that it had been materially impossible for the prescribed specialist lawyer to file pleadings.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicants jointly 20,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are a Tunisian national, Majhouda Saoud, and six French nationals, Mounira Saoud, Siem Saoud, Yasmina Saoud, Hassen Saoud, Kamel Saoud and Houcine Saoud, who were born respectively in 1946, 1973, 1977, 1981, 1979, 1983 and 1987 and live in Toulon (France). They are respectively the mother, sisters and brothers of Mohamed Saoud, who was born in 1972 and had French and Tunisian nationality.   A week before the facts at issue, Mohamed Saoud had requested admission to a clinic where he had previously received treatment for depression. As there were no places available, he was told that he could not be admitted until 23 November 1998. The young man suffered from schizophrenia and was recognised as 80% disabled.   On 20 November 1998 the Toulon police received a telephone call asking them to intervene at the Saoud family home, where the 26-year-old Mohamed Saoud was attacking his mother and his two sisters Siem and Yasmina. The young man had tied the legs of his sister Siem with wire and was kicking her.   According to the applicants, Yasmina Saoud informed the police officers of her brother’s illness and disability and of the need to call a doctor. No doctor was called. Mohamed Saoud refused to open the reinforced door to the flat when requested to do so by the officers, but agreed to free his sister Siem. Shouting abuse at the police officers, he then attacked his other sister, striking her several times with an iron bar.   The police officers entered the flat by the balcony. During the intervention Mohamed Saoud managed to strike the officers several times with the iron bar and to seize a revolver and fire four shots at floor level. The first contingent of officers, who were injured, were replaced by colleagues who, unable to handcuff Mohamed Saoud’s arms behind his back, handcuffed them in front of his body and used their body weight to keep him pinned to the ground on his stomach. Two police officers held him by the wrists and ankles while a third placed his outstretched arms on the young man’s shoulders and his knee in the small of his back.   On their arrival at the scene, members of the fire service administered first aid to the injured police officers while waiting for the emergency medical service (SAMU) to arrive and administer a tranquiliser, in view of Mohamed Saoud’s continuing resistance. Shortly afterwards, the young man developed a sudden weakness, which turned out to be cardiorespiratory arrest, and died. An autopsy and other tests revealed signs of possible “slow mechanical asphyxia”.   In January 1999 the applicants lodged a complaint for murder of an especially vulnerable person and sought leave to join the proceedings as a civil party, alleging in particular that no doctor had been called at the time of the events. On 12 October 2000 the investigating judge ordered that the proceedings be discontinued on the ground that there was insufficient evidence of a criminal wrong justifying the arrest of the police officers concerned. The order was upheld in a judgment dated 4 January 2001.   The applicants lodged appeals on points of law. On 24 July 2001 the delegate of the President of the Court of Cassation granted full legal aid to Mrs Mounira Saoud, who had lodged an application for a fresh decision in the matter. A lawyer practising in the Conseil d’Etat and the Court of Cassation was therefore appointed to assist the applicant before the Court of Cassation. On 18 September 2001 the Court of Cassation declared the appeals inadmissible.   The prescribed specialist lawyer informed the applicants that, as the decision of 24 July 2001 had not been served on him until 10 September 2001, he had been unable to file pleadings with the Court of Cassation before it ruled on the appeals.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 6 November 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Riza Türmen (Turkish), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), judges , and also Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar ; assisted by Anne-Marie Dougin , legal secretary .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicants complained of the killing of Mohamed Saoud during the police operation at their home and of the circumstances of his death. In addition, relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing), they complained that the criminal proceedings instituted after his death had been unfair.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   In view of the circumstances surrounding the arrest of Mohamed Saoud, the Court observed that the police officers’ intervention could be justified by the fact that they had to protect the physical integrity of the young man’s mother and one of his sisters. In that connection it noted that Mohamed Saoud had inflicted injuries on his sisters which had been the subject of a medical report, and that some police officers had also been seriously injured during the struggle. The medical experts’ reports had also stated that the injuries sustained by the young man had not been the cause of death. Accordingly, the conditions of his arrest had been proportionate to the violence of his conduct.   With regard to the events following the arrest, namely Mohamed Saoud’s being held to the ground by the police officers, the Court reiterated that the authorities had an obligation to protect the health of persons who were in detention or police custody or who, as in the case of Mohamed Saoud, had just been arrested. That entailed providing prompt medical care where the person’s state of health so required.   The police officers had not been unaware of Mohamed Saoud’s vulnerable state, having been told about it by one of his sisters. Despite the young man’s illness, his obvious injuries and the fact that, with his hands and feet immobilised, he no longer presented a danger to others, the police officers had not relaxed their hold on Mohamed Saoud at any time and no medical examination, however superficial, had been carried out on him to ascertain his state of health. The only measure apparently contemplated by the police and fire officers at the scene was the administration of a tranquiliser, which meant waiting for the emergency medical service to arrive.   The medical experts pinpointed the fact that Mohamed Saoud had been held to the ground for 35 minutes as the direct cause of his death from slow asphyxia. The Court deplored the fact that no precise instructions had been issued by the French authorities with regard to this type of immobilisation technique and that, despite the presence at the scene of professionals trained in emergency assistance, no treatment had been given to the young man prior to his cardiac arrest. Accordingly, the authorities had failed in their obligation to protect the life of Mohamed Saoud, and there had been a violation of Article 2.   Article 3   The Court noted that this complaint related to the same facts as those examined under Article 2, and took the view that there was no need to consider it separately.   Article 6 § 1   The Court observed that the decision of 24 July 2001 granting the applicant Mounira Saoud legal aid had offered her the opportunity to have her appeal on points of law defended by a specialist member of the legal profession. It considered that the proceedings before the Court of Cassation had not been fair on account of the fact that it had been materially impossible for the prescribed specialist lawyer to file pleadings before the Court of Cassation ruled on the applicants’ appeals. Accordingly, there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.     Judge Costa expressed a concurring opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.