AFFAIRE M.S. CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2013)175 M.S. împotriva Regatului Unit Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Recherche n 24527/08, Hotărârea din 3 mai 2012, definitivă la 3 august 2012) (adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 11 septembrie 2013 în cadrul celei de-a 1177-a ședințe a delegaților miniștrilor) Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede ca Comitetul să supravegheze executarea hotărârilor definitive ale Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (denumite în continuare "convenția" și "Curtea"), Având în vedere hotărârea definitivă care a fost transmisă de Curte Comitetului în cauza de mai sus și încălcarea constatată reamintind obligația statului pârât, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (1) (1) din Convenție, să se conformeze hotărârilor definitive în litigiile la care este parte și că această obligație implică, pe lângă plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte, adoptarea de către autoritățile din statul membru în cauză, dacă este necesar de măsuri individuale pentru a pune capăt încălcărilor constatate și pentru a elimina consecințele acestora, în măsura posibilului de către Restitutio in integrum de măsuri generale de prevenire a unor încălcări similare care au invitat guvernul din statul pârât să informeze Comitetul cu privire la măsurile luate pentru a se conforma obligației respective După examinarea bilanțului de acțiune furnizat de guvern care indică măsurile adoptate în vederea executării hotărârii judecătorești, inclusiv informațiile furnizate în ceea ce privește plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2013)682), asigurându-se că au fost adoptate toate măsurile prevăzute la art. 46 alineatul (1), DECLAMENTUL PE CARE își îndeplinește funcțiile în temeiul art. 46 alin. (2) din Convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d'en . Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights Acțiune report MS v. UK, Application No. 24527/08, judgment final on 03/08/2012 Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 31 May 2013 (engleză) Doar Case summary Rubrica de identificare: On 6 decembrie 2004, the aplicant was detained arrested and transferred to a police station where it a fost notat that he was suffering from some form of mental illness and that a doctor would be required. His detention was authorised under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (The 1983 Act) which permits the detention of a mentally disordered person The applicant was detained for more than 72 hours (approximately 75 hours period) before being transferred to a psychiatric clinic (The Reaside Clinic). While the applicant was in detention, his condition deteriorated considerably to the extent that he removed all his clothing, was dring water from the paint bowl, had smearered himself in food or faeces and was rocking to and frate on a bench, talking to himself, banging his chest and ranting. During the latter stagiis of his detention, he also refuzed all offers of food and drink. The Court noted that the situation appeared to have arisen esentially out of difficulties of coordonare between the support authorities when suddenly confronted with an urgent mental health case. Even though the Court acceptăd that there had been no intention to umilit or debase the applicant, the Court found that the conditions which the aplicant was required to endure were an abbas to uman dignity and reached the threshold of degrading treatment for the purposes of Article 3. It conclused that the aplicant had suffered degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the ECR. Individual measures Satisfacție echitabilă: The just satisfaction award for moraly damage has been paid and evidence previously implored. Individual measures: The government considers that no further individual Measures are nevoiesary. General Measures General Measures: On 24 April 2008, the legal department of the Reaside Clinic as NHS Trust reported that a protocol had been agreed between the Trust and the West Midlands Police in order to avoid such a situation recurring. The West Midlands has since become the model of good Practice on section 136 (Police Powers and Places of Safety) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (2007) on which subsequent nationale ghidance was based. As set out at at paragraph 29 of the judgment, at the time of the applicicantion in 2004, once a person had been detained in one place of safety, they could not be transferred to another place of safety. An important amendment has sine been made to section 136 of the 1983 Act by the Mental Health Act 2007 to allow a person to be transferred from one place of safety (e.g. a police station) to another place of safety (e.g. a spital). Chapter 10 of the 2008 revised version of the Code of Practice Mental Health Act 1983 (the full text of which can found at the link below) clarifis that, if a police station is used as a place of safety, consideration should be given to the possibility of a transfer to an alternativ place of safety as soon as posibil and further states that a police station should only used as a loc of safety The Code of Practice also sets out the importantity of ensuring joinly agreed local policies which define responsibilities for the Providence and identification of pieces of safety and co-ordonation between police forces and other services in such circumstances; as well as the necessity of trening for any professionals involved. http://webarhiva.national archives.gov.uk20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_087073.pdf In addition, in 2010 the National Policy Improvement Agency publicisshed mails on Responsing to People with Mental Ill Health or Learning Disabilities, a Briefing Note on Recognising Mental Ill Health and Learning Disabilities Aceste publicații, iubite at providing a mails mechanism for the development and improvment of police responses in the field of mental health , can be found at the links below. They set out further detail with the use of the police station as a loc of safety and reiterate, inter alia, that a police station should only be used on an exceptional bazis; that all police forces should have access to urmarible non-police places of safety rapidly; and that there be co-operation between the police and healthcare trusts to ensure that there are not only sucient locs of safety across each entire for but also sucient resources for the same. www.acpo.police.uk/documents/edhr/2010/201004EDHRMIH01.pdf www.ohrn.nhs.uk/resource/policy/PoliceBNMentalHealth2010.pdf http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/npia/Briefing-Note-Multiagency-Protocols-Mental-Health-2010.pdf The government considers no further general measures to be necessary ciocause all the steps that need to be taken tovoid a remetion of this experience have already been taken. Publicație: The judgment has been publicished on: http://www.leandii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/804.html http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/MS_v_UK_24527/08_(2012)_ECHR_804,_(2012)_MHLO_46 Dissemination: The judgment was disseminated to the bodies immediately remedical action has already been taken as explained in the general meaasures section above. State of execution of judgment: the government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed.

Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)175

M.S. contre Royaume-Uni

Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme

(Requête n

o

24527/08, arrêt du 3 mai 2012, définitif le 3 aout 2012)

(adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 11 septembre 2013,

lors de la 1177e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)

Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «

la Convention

» et «

la Cour

»),

Vu l’arrêt définitif qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée

;

Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe

1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire

:

-

de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par

restitutio in integrum

;

et

-

de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables

;

Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer à l’obligation susmentionnée

;

Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt, y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)682)

;

S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées,

DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et

DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.

Execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights

Action report

MS v. UK, Application No. 24527/08, judgment final on 03/08/2012

Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 31 May 2013

(anglais uniquement)

Case summary

Case description:

On 6 December 2004, the applicant was detained arrested and transferred to a police station where it was noted that he was suffering from some form of mental illness and that a doctor would be required. His detention was authorised under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (the 1983 Act) which permits the detention of a mentally disordered person “in a place of safety” for up to 72 hours to allow them to be examined by appropriate health professionals and for appropriate arrangements to be made for their care. The applicant was detained for more than 72 hours (approximately 75 hours period) before being transferred to a psychiatric clinic (the Reaside Clinic).

While the applicant was in detention, his condition deteriorated considerably to the extent that he removed all his clothing, was drinking water from the toilet bowl, had smeared himself in food or faeces and was rocking to and fro on a bench, talking to himself, banging his chest and ranting. During the latter stages of his detention, he also refused all offers of food and drink.

The Court noted that the situation appeared to have arisen essentially out of difficulties of co-ordination between the relevant authorities when suddenly confronted with an urgent mental health case. Even though the Court accepted that there had been no intention to humiliate or debase the applicant, the Court found that the conditions which the applicant was required to endure were an affront to human dignity and reached the threshold of degrading treatment for the purposes of Article 3. It concluded that the applicant had suffered degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the ECHR.

Individual measures

Just satisfaction:

The just satisfaction award for non-pecuniary damage has been paid and evidence previously supplied.

Individual measures:

The government considers that no further individual measures are necessary.

General measures

General measures:

On 24 April 2008, the legal department of the Reaside Clinic’s NHS Trust reported that a protocol had been agreed between the Trust and the West Midlands Police in order to avoid such a situation recurring. The West Midlands has since become the model of good practice on Section 136 (Police Powers and Places of Safety) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (2007) on which subsequent national guidance was based.

As set out at paragraph 29 of the judgment, at the time of the applicant’s detention in 2004, once a person had been detained in one place of safety, they could not be transferred to another place of safety. An important amendment has since been made to Section 136 of the 1983 Act by the Mental Health Act 2007 to allow a person to be transferred from one place of safety (e.g. a police station) to another place of safety (e.g. a hospital). Chapter 10 of the 2008 revised version of the Code of Practice Mental Health Act 1983 (the full text of which can be found at the link below) clarifies that, if a police station is used as a place of safety, consideration should be given to the possibility of a transfer to an alternative place of safety as soon as possible and further states that a police station should only be used as a place of safety “on an exceptional basis”. The Code of Practice also sets out the importance of ensuring jointly agreed local policies which define responsibilities for the provision and identification of places of safety and co-ordination between police forces and other services in such circumstances; as well as the necessity of training for any professionals involved.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_087073.pdf

In addition, in 2010 the National Policing Improvement Agency published “Guidance on Responding to People with Mental Ill Health or Learning Disabilities, a Briefing Note on Recognising Mental Ill Health and Learning Disabilities” and a “Briefing Note on Establishing Multi-Agency Protocols for Responding to Mental Ill Health and Learning Disabilities”. These publications, aimed at providing a “robust mechanism for the development and improvement of police responses in the field of mental health”, can be found at the links below. They set out further detail with regard to the use of the police station as a place of safety and reiterate,

inter alia,

that a police station should only be used on an exceptional basis; that all police forces should have access to suitable non-police places of safety rapidly; and that there be co-operation between the police and healthcare trusts to ensure that there are not only sufficient places of safety across each entire force but also sufficient resources for the same.

www.acpo.police.uk/documents/edhr/2010/201004EDHRMIH01.pdf

www.ohrn.nhs.uk/resource/policy/PoliceBNMentalHealth2010.pdf

http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/npia/Briefing-Note-Multiagency-Protocols-Mental-Health-2010.pdf

The government considers no further general measures to be necessary because all the steps that needed to be taken to avoid a repetition of this experience have already been taken.

Publication:

The judgment has been published on:

http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/804.html

http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/MS_v_UK_24527/08_(2012)_ECHR_804,_(2012)_MHLO_46

Dissemination:

The judgment was disseminated to the bodies immediately concerned and more general remedial action has already been taken as explained in the general measures section above.

State of execution of judgment:

The government considers that all necessary measures have been taken and the case should be closed.