CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 14 octobre 1999

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s21B97EC1 { width:25.99pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s6CFF9571 { width:25.89pt; display:inline-block } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     552   14.10.1999   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF RIERA BLUME AND OTHERS v. SPAIN     In a judgment [1] delivered at Strasbourg on 14 October 1999 in the case of Riera Blume and Others v. Spain (application no. 37680/97), the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights and that it was unnecessary to examine separately the complaint based on Article 9 of the Convention. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded 250,000 pesetas (ESP) to each of the applicants for non-pecuniary damage and ESP   500,000 to the applicants jointly for legal costs and expenses.   1.   Principal facts   The applicants, Ms Elena Riera Blume, Ms Concepción Riera Blume, Ms Maria Luz Casado Perez, Ms Daria Amelia Casado Perez, Ms   Maria Teresa Sales Aige and Mr Javier Bruna Reverter, were born in 1954, 1952, 1950, 1950, 1951 and 1957 respectively and live in Valencia (Spain).   On 20 June 1984, during a preliminary judicial investigation, the homes of the applicants, who were thought to be members of a sect, were searched. The applicants were arrested and transferred to the Barcelona investigating court, where a judge decided to release them but gave oral instructions that they should be handed over to their families, to whom it should be suggested that it would be as well to have them interned in a psychiatric centre. That decision was subsequently confirmed in writing.   The applicants were then transferred from the court to the premises of the Public Safety Department of the Generalitat (government) of Catalonia on the orders of its Director-General and, on 21 June 1984, were taken by members of the Catalan police in official vehicles to a hotel some thirty kilometres from Barcelona. There they were handed over to their families and taken to individual rooms with firmly closed windows, where they were kept under constant supervision; they were not allowed to leave the rooms for the first three days. They were subjected to a process of “deprogramming” by a psychologist and a psychiatrist. On 29 and 30 June 1984, after being informed of their rights, they were questioned by the Assistant Director-General of Public Safety in the presence of a lawyer not appointed by them and on 30 June 1984 they left the hotel.   As soon as they had regained their freedom, they lodged a criminal complaint alleging, among other things, false imprisonment against the Director-General, the Assistant Director-General and a Public Safety Department official. At the end of the criminal proceedings that followed, the Barcelona Audiencia provincial acquitted the accused, holding that the acts complained of had been prompted by a philanthropic, legitimate and well-intentioned motive, so that the offence of false imprisonment was not made out. Appeals lodged by the prosecution and the applicants, and an amparo appeal by the applicants to the Constitutional Court were all dismissed.   2.   Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 25   August 1997.   On 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force, the application was transmitted to the Court.   In accordance with Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the case was assigned to the Fourth Section. A Chamber of seven judges constituted from the Section declared the application partly admissible on 9 March 1999 and held a hearing on 22   June 1999.   Judgment was given by the Chamber, composed as follows:   Matti Pellonpää (Finnish), President , Georg Ress (German), Antonio Pastor Ridruejo (Spanish), Lucius Caflisch [2] (Swiss), Jerzy Makarczyk (Polish), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Judges ,   and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .   3.   Summary of the judgment [3]     Complaints   The applicants complained of the unlawfulness of their deprivation of liberty and of the interference with their right to freedom of thought, contrary to Articles 5 and 9 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court     Article 5 § 1   The Court considered that the applicants’ transfer to the hotel by the Catalan police and their subsequent confinement to the hotel for ten days had amounted in fact, on account of the restrictions placed on the applicants, to a deprivation of liberty. The Court found that there had been no legal basis for that deprivation of liberty. It was therefore necessary to consider the part played by the Catalan authorities and to determine its extent.   The Court considered that the national authorities had at all times acquiesced in the applicants’ loss of liberty. While it was true that it was the applicants’ families and the Pro Juventud association that had borne the direct and immediate responsibility for the supervision of the applicants during their ten days’ loss of liberty, it was equally true that without the active cooperation of the Catalan authorities the deprivation of liberty could not have taken place. As the ultimate responsibility for the matter complained of had thus lain with the authorities in question, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.     Article 9   The applicants argued that the “deprogramming” measures to which they had been subjected during their detention had infringed Article 9 of the Convention.   The Court observed that the applicants’ detention was at the core of the complaints under consideration. Having held that it had been arbitrary and hence unlawful for the purposes of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the Court did not consider it necessary to undertake a separate examination of the case under Article 9.     Article 41   The Court noted that the applicants had submitted an aggregate claim for compensation without providing any information in support of their claims in respect of pecuniary damage. It therefore considered that they should not be awarded any compensation under that head. As to non-pecuniary damage, the Court was of the view that each of the applicants had undeniably sustained non-pecuniary damage on account of the violation found. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, it awarded ESP   250,000 to each of them under this head.   The applicants and the Government had wished to leave the matter of costs and expenses to the Court’s discretion. Making its assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awarded the applicants jointly the sum of ESP 500,000 for costs and expenses.   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.dhcour.coe.fr ).   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] . The judgment will become final in the circumstances laid down in Article 44 of the Convention read together with Article 43: Article   43 – Within a period of three   months from the date of the judgment of the Chamber, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber. A panel of five judges of the Grand Chamber shall accept the request if the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or a serious issue of general importance . Article   44 – The judgment of the Grand Chamber shall be final. (a)     when the parties declare that they will not request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber; or (b)     three   months after the date of the judgment, if reference of the case to the Grand Chamber has not been requested; or (c)     when the panel of the Grand Chamber rejects the request to refer under Article   43.   [2] . Elected as the judge in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] . This summary by the registry does not bind the Court.