CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 13 octobre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 }   752 13.10.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] de Schepper v.Belgium (application no. 27428/07 )   PREVENTIVE DETENTION OF PAEDOPHILE ON SOCIAL PROTECTION GROUNDS   No violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights.     Principal facts   The applicant, Georges de Schepper, is a Belgian national who was born in 1944 and is currently interned in Bruges prison. From 1970 onwards he served eight prison sentences for acts of paedophilia. In a judgment of 2 January 2001 the Antwerp Criminal Court sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment for the rape and assault of minors. In accordance with the Social Protection Act (Law of 1 July 1964 on “social protection against abnormal behaviour, delinquency and certain sexual offences”), that judgment also placed Mr de Schepper “at the Government’s disposal” for a period of ten years after serving his sentence. This meant that, during the period in question, the Minister of Justice could either release him under certain conditions or order his internment (preventive detention). From 2002 onwards the authorities attempted on several occasions to secure his admission in a private psychiatric institution where he could be treated. A preliminary therapy was also organised in the prison to prepare him for admission. However, all the institutions approached expressed the view that they could not treat him for the time being in view of his dangerousness, which had not diminished in spite of the preliminary therapy.   On 9 October 2006, based on the relevant provisions of the Social Protection Act, the Minister of Justice ordered Mr de Schepper’s internment after the expiry of his prison sentence, i.e., from the following day, 10 October 2006. The decision was based on experts’ reports and on the finding that the applicant would, if released, represent a danger for society. That conclusion had been drawn, in particular, from the absence of long-term specialist in-patent treatment, Mr de Schepper’s record of repeated sexual offences against minors, his serious sexual perversion, risks related to alcohol abuse, his tendency to minimise his acts and his total absence of feeling of guilt. The applicant’s appeals against the decision were dismissed by an order of the chambre du conseil of the Antwerp Court of First Instance and a judgment of 18   December 2006 of the Antwerp Court of Appeal. On 2   January 2007 the Court of Cassation dismissed his appeal on points of law, finding in particular that his detention was lawful, because the decision of the Minister of Justice ordering the preventive detention of a convicted person held at the Government’s disposal under the Social Protection Act was not a prosecution-related decision but pertained solely to the enforcement of a measure imposed by the Criminal Court.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) the applicant complained that he had been arbitrarily kept in detention after serving his sentence. He argued, among other things, that the alleged necessity of his preventive detention stemmed solely from a structural lack of specialist treatment. The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 1 June 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), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), Judges , and Françoise Elens-Passos , Deputy Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   At first sight, the fact that a person could be placed at the Government’s disposal did not appear arbitrary; this social protection measure was part of the sentence set by the Criminal Court. The Minister of Justice, in deciding on the preventive detention of a person at the Government’s disposal, was simply laying down the conditions of application of a sentence. Whilst such conditions might sometimes fall within the scope of the Convention, in principle they did not affect the lawfulness of a custodial measure.   In Mr de Schepper’s case, the Minister had complied with the statutory conditions in deciding on the preventive detention. In particular, his decision had contained precise reasoning. Contrary to the applicant’s allegation, the lack of long-term specialist in-patient treatment was not the only reason for his preventive detention but it was admittedly a decisive factor, because a course of treatment specially adapted to his situation could have reduced his “dangerousness”.   The Court thus examined in some detail the authorities’ efforts to secure him such treatment; in particular, the numerous attempts to place him in a psychiatric institution and the preliminary therapy made available in the prison. It concluded that the Belgian authorities had not failed in their obligation to seek to provide Mr de Schepper with treatment adapted to his condition that might help him recover his freedom. The authorities’ lack of success to date could be explained mainly by the evolution in the applicant’s condition and the fact that it was therapeutically impossible for the institutions approached to treat him at that stage. However, this finding did not release the Government from their obligation to take all appropriate initiatives in order to find, in the near future, a public or private institution that would be able to treat such cases.   The Court held unanimously that the applicant’s detention after October 2006 had been justified and that there had therefore been no violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.     ***   The judgment is available only in French. 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 Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) 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.