CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 16 mai 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4060989B { margin-left:10.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     264   16.5.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF D.G. v. IRELAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of D.G. v. Ireland (application no. 39474/98). The Court held, unanimously, that there had been:   a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights; a violation of Article 5 § 5 (enforceable right to compensation) no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) .   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 5,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 16,138.96 for legal costs and expenses.   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, D.G., is an Irish national born on 9 July 1980. At the relevant time he was a minor, with a criminal history, who was considered to have a personality disorder and to be a danger to himself and others. On 14 March 1997 it was decided that he should be placed in a high-support therapeutic unit for 16 to 18-year-olds.   On 27 June 1997 the High Court decided that, as there were no secure educational facilities available in Ireland, D.G. should be detained for three weeks in St. Patrick’s Institution (a prison in Ireland), as the “least offensive” of the various “inappropriate” options available. In the meantime efforts were to be made to find a suitable placement for him.   The High Court’s order was renewed on the same basis on 18 July 1997. The third order (of 23 July 1997) prolonged D.G.’s detention on the ground that temporary “accommodation and care” facilities were being prepared and would be ready by 28 July 1997. After D.G. absconded from the facilities in question, the High Court ordered his further detention in St. Patrick’s in August 1997. D.G. was then moved to temporary accommodation. By 16 February 1998, he had been allocated short-term accommodation with 24-hour supervision.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 14 January 1998 and transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Georg Ress (German), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Lucius Caflisch [2] (Swiss), Pranas Kūris (Lithuanian), John Hedigan (Irish), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (FYROMacedonia), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints The applicant complained that his detention in St Patrick’s, from 27   June to 28 July 1997, was in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. He further claimed, under Article 5 § 5, that he had no enforceable right to compensation.   Under Article 3, he complained that, although he was a minor in need of special care, he was detained in a penal institution, that his unique status (as someone not charged or convicted) meant other detainees believed he was a serious sexual offender, leading to his being insulted, humiliated, threatened and abused and that he was hand-cuffed to a prison officer each time he was brought before the courts. He also relied on Articles 8 and 14.   Decision of the Court   Article 5 § 1 The Court examined whether D.G.’s detention could be considered an interim measure preliminary to a regime of supervised education, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1. The Court noted that the High Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on the basis that temporary “accommodation and care” facilities were being prepared and would be ready by 28 July 1997. Subsequent events demonstrated that those facilities were not secure (the applicant absconded) and the High Court clearly considered those facilities inappropriate as it then ordered the applicant’s further detention in St. Patrick’s in August 1997, 18 days after his release.   In such circumstances, the Court did not find that the applicant’s detention in June and July 1997 in St. Patrick’s could be considered to have been an interim custody measure preliminary to a regime of supervised education. The High Court’s first two detention orders were not based on any specific proposal for his secure and supervised education and the third was based on a proposal for temporary accommodation which, in any event, turned out to be neither secure nor appropriate and which inevitably led to yet another order of the High Court detaining the applicant in St. Patrick’s. Even if it could be assumed that his detention from February 1998 was sufficiently secure and educationally appropriate, this was put in place more than six months after his release from St. Patrick’s in July 1997.   Accordingly, the Court concluded that the applicant’s detention in St.   Patrick’s between 27 June and 28 July 1997 was in breach of Article 5 § 1.   Article 5 § 5 Having found that D.G.’s detention constituted a violation of Article 5 § 1 and that the detention orders were lawful in domestic law, the Court concluded that he had no enforceable right to compensation, in violation of Article 5 § 5.   Article 3 The Court accepted that the intent of the High Court, in ordering the applicant’s detention, was protective and that it could not be concluded that it constituted “punishment” within the meaning of Article 3.   Neither did the Court consider that the evidence submitted supported a conclusion that D.G.’s detention (as a minor, not charged or convicted of any offence) in a penal institution could, of itself, constitute “inhuman or degrading” treatment. The applicant was detained in a prison which provided educational and recreational activities, which was adapted to the needs of juvenile detainees and where a significant portion of the detainees were his or close to his age. Specific conditions had also been imposed by the High Court. Furthermore, the fact that the applicant was subject to prison discipline did not, of itself, give rise to an issue under Article 3, given his history of criminal activity, of self-harm and of violence to others.   As to any treatment of the applicant over and above that of a detainee in St. Patrick’s penal institution subject to its disciplinary regime, the Court noted that there was no psychological, medical or other expert evidence substantiating the mental or physical impact alleged by the applicant. Even assuming that feelings of depression, frustration and anger were caused by the applicant’s incarceration, neither the prescribed treatment, the medical officer’s view that the applicant was “quite well” or the consultant psychiatrist’s diagnosis demonstrated that the impact on him of his detention amounted to treatment falling within the scope of Article 3. Indeed, the applicant had been in St. Patrick’s in early 1997 and the High Court found on the evidence that he appeared to have done well there. Moreover, he had provided no evidence of the allegation that he was ill-treated by fellow inmates.   As to his being hand-cuffed, the Court did not find that handcuffing the applicant in public - despite his being a minor - amounted to a violation of Article 3. He was, as any adult could be, considered by the High Court to be a danger to himself and others.   The Court therefore found that there had been no violation of Article   3.   Article 8 The Court concluded that the applicant’s complaint concerning the lawfulness of his detention did not give rise to any separate issue under Article 8 and that otherwise there had not been a violation of Article 8.       Article 14 In the Court’s view, there was an objective and reasonable justification for any difference in the treatment of minors requiring containment and education and adults with the same requirements. In so far as D.G. compared his situation to that of other minors, the Court considered that no separate issue arose.   The Court therefore concluded that there had been no violation of Article 14   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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] .     Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.