CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s777B7D40 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#008080 } .s7FAB69C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#0000ff } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   757 13.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING DEPRIVATION AND RESTORATION OF LEGAL CAPACITY UNFAIR Salontaji-Drobnjak v. Serbia (application no. 36500/05 )   Two violations of Article 6 §1 (right to a fair trial) Violation of Article 8 (right to private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 12,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   3,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   Principal facts   The applicant, Slavko Salontaji-Drobnjak, is a Serbian national who was born in 1949 and lives in Vrbas, Serbia.   Since 1973 Mr Salontaji-Drobnjak has brought before the domestic courts some 200 lawsuits against his employer and its management, as well as against various private parties and Government officials, alleging irregularities, harassment and malfeasance. He has also lodged numerous criminal complaints on the same grounds.   In 1996, criminal proceedings were brought against him for threatening the general manager in the company in which he was employed. The court found later that year that he was not criminally liable as he could not control his actions and did not understand their meaning properly, and ordered his mandatory psychiatric treatment as an out-patient. Mr Salontaji-Drobnjak reported regularly for treatment throughout the assigned period which ended in November 1998.   In March 2002 a court order was issued upon the request of the local Social Care Centre for a mandatory psychiatric examination of the applicant. A psychiatric institute examined him in December 2004, concluded that he suffered from litigious paranoia and recommended that his legal capacity be restricted. As a result, following a hearing which Mr Salontaji-Drobnjak did not attend and in which he was represented by a state-appointed lawyer whom he never met, the court partially deprived him of his legal capacity in February 2005.   Mr Salontaji-Drobnjak was arrested later that month and charged with intimidation of a judge. He was detained until May 2005 and was psychiatrically examined anew. The report concluded that he suffered from a personality disorder which was not a mental illness and his criminal responsibility could therefore not be excluded altogether.   In 2005, Mr Salontaji-Drobnjak asked the court to restore his full legal capacity. His request was rejected on the grounds that he could not represent himself in court proceedings without a guardian. The Social Care Centre appointed his son as a guardian under the condition that he seeks its consent for any action he undertook. When the guardian applied in court asking, in the absence the Social Care Centre’s consent, that his father’s legal capacity be restored, the court rejected it. The court found in particular that without the agreement of the Social Care Centre, the applicant’s son had no standing to bring the proceedings at issue.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article 6 § 1 and on Article 8, the applicant complained about the unfairness of the proceedings to determine his legal capacity and about his inability to institute proceedings for the restoration of his legal capacity.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 11 October 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President , Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Kristina Pardalos (San Marino), judges ,   and Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   Proceedings to determine legal capacity   The Court noted that the applicant had been excluded from the final hearing and had therefore been unable to personally challenge the experts’ report recommending the partial deprivation of his legal capacity. Further, the domestic court’s decision to this effect had not been reasoned enough and was worded in rather vague terms. In addition, the Court did not accept the Government’s submission that Mr Salontaji-Drobnjak’s participation in the proceedings would have been useless. Finally, Mr Salontaji-Drobnjak had had   no opportunity to meet the lawyer appointed by the state to represent him nor to give her   instructions. The Court therefore concluded unanimously that the proceedings in question, taken as a whole had not satisfied the requirements of a fair hearing and, consequently, there had been a violation of Article   6   §   1.   Proceeding for the full restoration of legal capacity   The Court first noted that despite the numerous requests lodged by Mr Salontaji-Drobnjak and his guardian to have his legal capacity fully restored, four year later a court had not yet pronounced itself on the matter. Secondly, during this time there had been no comprehensive psychiatric examination of the applicant. Lastly, the domestic law did not provide for a periodical judicial re-assessment of the applicant’s condition but granted the decisive power in this regard to the Social Care Centre. Consequently, the Court held unanimously that the very essence of the applicant’s right to a court had been impaired, in violation of Article   6   §   1.   Private life   The Court found that the limitation of the applicant’s legal capacity had been very serious as he was unable to independently take part in legal actions, file for a disability pension, decide about his own medical treatment, or even get a loan. However, the procedure which the domestic courts had applied when deciding on it had itself been fundamentally flawed and, some four years later, they had not yet re-examined their decision despite numerous requests for it. The Court concluded unanimously that while a legal system had to protect itself from vexatious litigants, the domestic authorities had to set up an effective judicial mechanism of dealing with such litigants’ claims without having to necessarily limit their legal capacity. There had, accordingly, been a breach of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life and a violation of Article 8.     ***   This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) 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.