CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 mars 2009

.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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   220 17.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT HOUTMAN AND MEEUS v. BELGIUM   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Houtman and Meeus v. Belgium (application no. 22945/07).   The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5 (enforceable right to compensation) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the failure of the Belgian courts to compensate the applicants for Godelieve Houtman’s unlawful confinement in a psychiatric institution.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Godelieve Houtman 3,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   6,000 for costs and expenses. The Court found that the finding of a violation constituted sufficient just satisfaction for the damage sustained by Thomas Meeus. ( The judgment is available only in French .)   1.     Principal facts   The applicants are Godelieve Houtman and her husband Thomas Meeus, two Belgian nationals living in Heverlee (Belgium).   The case concerned Godelieve Houtman’s confinement for several days in a psychiatric institution, against her will.   On 12 May 1993 the applicants reported to the accident and emergency department of Gasthuisberg university hospital in Louvain (Belgium), where anti-psychotic medication and sedatives were administered to Mrs Houtman, who was in a very agitated state as she suspected her husband of committing adultery. The following day Mrs Houtman was transferred, at the instigation of the doctors who had examined her, to St Jozef university psychiatric hospital in Kortenberg (Belgium). The head of the psychiatric department assumed that Mrs Houtman had consented to the treatment. However, during the registration process the latter indicated that she was opposed to her confinement. On the same day she contacted her general practitioner, requesting the latter to secure her release from the hospital. Mrs Houtman finally left the psychiatric hospital on 17 May 1993 after the public prosecutor’s office intervened in response to a request from her sister and some of her friends.   On 1 July 1993 the applicants brought an action for damages against the doctors involved in Mrs Houtman’s confinement and against the psychiatric hospitals concerned. They considered that her deprivation of liberty had been unlawful, and claimed compensation for the damage sustained as a result of her compulsory confinement.   The Belgian courts acknowledged, among other things, that the applicant had been placed in the psychiatric hospital without the procedure before a magistrate, provided for by the Law of 26   June 1990, having been initiated. However, they refused to award compensation on the ground that there was no causal link between this breach of domestic procedure and the damage alleged. In November 2005 the Brussels Court of Appeal found that the applicant’s confinement had resulted not from a “fault” but from a “state of health” and that the applicants had not demonstrated that the alleged damage had been caused by the breach of the law. In December 2006 the Court of Cassation dismissed an appeal by the applicants on points of law.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 May 2007.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), President , Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 5 § 5, the applicants alleged that they had not obtained compensation for the damage sustained as a result of Mrs Houtman’s deprivation of liberty.   Decision of the Court   The Court noted a failure in this case to comply with the fundamental provisions of the Law of 26 June 1990. The Court of Appeal, moreover, had expressly recognised this fact in its judgment, stressing that even if the doctors had believed that the applicant’s confinement would be of short duration, the statutory procedure should have been followed to the letter. The Court of Appeal’s finding that the applicant’s confinement had been appropriate and warranted by her state of health had effectively sought to justify a decision taken in breach of the statutory procedure and resulting in a period of confinement that could have lasted for some time: on 13 May, a doctor had told Mr Meeus that it could last for two to three weeks.   Hence, the Court of Appeal’s conclusion amounted to an acknowledgement of the fact that the applicant had been subjected to a deprivation of liberty contrary to Article 5 § 1 of the Convention (right to liberty and security). This, according to the Court’s case-law, created a direct right to compensation. Accordingly, the Court considered that the Belgian courts had not interpreted and applied the domestic law in the spirit of Article 5 § 1, and held that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 5.     Judge Sajó expressed a partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.