[TRANSLATION]

( ... )

THE FACTS

The applicant , Mr Jean Benazet , was a French national who was born in 1932 and, at the time of the introduction of the application, liv ed in Bordeaux . He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Bernardet , a sociologist in La Fresnaye-sur-Chédouet . The French Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr s E . Belliard , Director of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was committed to a mental hospital eight times between 1978 and 1990.

On 27 March 1991, having previously made an appointment , the applicant went to see the doctor who had issued the medical certificat e authorising his most recent committal and threatened him with a pellet gun, with which he then fired five shots, wounding the doctor in the head and the left knee . A judicial investigation was opened for attempted murder with premeditation .

On 21 May 1991, in accordance with A rticles L. 342 and L. 348 of the Public Health Code , the P r e fe c t of the Vaucluse département ordered the applicant ’ s compulsory hospitalisation in the diffic ult patients unit ( D.P.U. ) of the Montfavet specialised hospital centre ( S .H. C.) . The order took effe c t on 23 May 1991, when the investigat ing judge of the Bordeaux tribunal de grande instance dismissed the charges against the applicant concern ing the events of 27 M ar ch 1991 , stating that two psychiatr ic experts had found that the applicant had been mentally disturbed at the material time and could therefore not be prosecuted .

Two orders confirm ing the applicant ’ s compulsory confinement were issued on 27 June 1991 and 18 June 1993 by the Prefect of the Vaucluse département .

On 3 N ovemb er 1993 the Prefect of Vaucluse issued a new order concern ing the applicant , stating that he posed a threat to public order and safety and ordering his continued confinement .

On 28 O ctob er 1998 the applicant applied to the urgent applications judge of the Avignon tribunal de grande instance for his imm e diate release from the Montfavet S .H. C . , by virtue of A rticles L. 345 and L. 351 of the Public Health Code .

On 19 February 1999 the Avignon tribunal de grande instance dismissed the applicant ’ s urgent application .

On 10 March 1999 the applicant app eal ed against th at judgment. Relying , in particular , on A rticle 5 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention, he submitted that the decision of 21 May 1991 had never been served on him and that his de tention was in any event illegal .

By a decision of 2 S eptemb er 1999 the Nîmes Court of Appeal found that A rticle L. 345 of the Public Health Code was applicable in the instant case, subject to compliance also with A rticles L. 348 and L. 348-1 of that code, and in an interlocutory decision on the applicant ’ s request for imm e diate release , appointed two medical experts to examine him , in conform ity with the above-mentioned provisions .

The two experts filed their reports with the registry of the Court of Appeal on 13 October and 4 November 1999.

In a judgment of 9 March 2000, the Nîmes Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal for immediate release .

T he applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation against the two judgment s of the Nîmes Court of Appeal .

In the meantime , on 18 July 2000, the Prefect of Vaucluse issued an order aut h oris ing the applicant ’ s transfer to the Charles Perrens specialised hospital centre ( S .H. C.) in Bordeaux .

On 25 July 2000 the applicant was transfer red .

From 26 June 2001 onwards the applicant was no longer confined under the “ compulsory committal ” system but “ hospitalis ed at the request of a third party”.

From 30 August 2001, while still under regular psychiatri c supervision in hospital, he was allowed out for a time on a trial basis, during which he stayed at the Amaryllis retirement home in Bordeaux .

In a judgment delivered on 11 June 2002 the Cour t of C assation, ruling on the appeals lodged against the Nîmes Court of Appeal ’ s judgments of 2 S eptemb er 1999 and 9 March 2000 , set aside those judgments on t he ground that the provisions o f A rticle L. 345 of the Public Health Code did not apply to compulsory committal ordered under A rticle L. 348 of that code. Without ordering a rehearing , the Cour t of C assation upheld the decision of 19 February 1999.

On 3 O ctob er 2002 the applicant lodged an application to be released from the Charles Perrens S.H.C. in Bordeaux .

On 26 N ovemb er 2002 he was heard by the libertie s and de tention judge of the Bordeaux tribunal de grande instance , who delivered ju d gment on 29 N ovemb er 2002 , ord ering the applicant ’ s imm e diate release and terminating his “ hospitalisation at the request of a third party” .

On 11 S eptemb er 2003 the supervision measure under which the applicant had been placed was lifted .

In the meantime , on 10 Dec emb er 2002 , the applicant had lodged an application with the Court .

In a lett er of 12 July 2006 the applicant ’ s representative before t he Cour t inform ed the Court that the applicant had died in May 2006.

The applicant ’ s only heir, his daughter A., is in the care of the State , in the Association pour a dult e s et jeunes handicapés (APAJH - Association for Adults and Young People with Disabilities ) in Bordeaux . Considering that it did not have authority to decide alone whether or not the application should be continued, the APAJH applied to the Bordeaux guardianship judge for instructions .

In a letter date d 30 O ctob er 2006 the Bordeaux guardianship judge inform ed the APAJH that it did not seem judicious for A. to take over the various legal proceedings her father had initiated, including the present application. The m e dica l information in his possession made it clear that it was not in the interest of the daughter ’ s protection for her to take such a course .

COMPLAINTS

At the outset , relying on A rticle 3 of the Convention, the applicant alleged that his confinement in the difficult patients unit (D.P.U.) had amounted to inhuma n and degrading treatment .

Under A rticle 5 § 1 of the Convention he complained, in particular, about the conditions of supervision of patients in Montfavet D.P.U. and questioned the lawfulness of his confinement . He also complained of the lack of regular review of the measure ordering his confinement in Montfavet D.P.U.

Relying on A rticle 5 § 2 of the Convention, he complained, among other things, of the failure to serve him with his committal order and the various ensuing renewal orders .

Under A rticle 5 § 3 of the Con vention he alleged that , at the time of his committal in June 1991 , he had not been brought before a judge to verify the need for his confinement .

Under A rticle 5 § 4 of the Convention he claimed, in particular, that no prompt decision had been reached, at the first instance or on appe a l, on his 28 O ctob er 1998 urgent app lication to the Avignon tribunal de grande instance .

The applicant also claimed that he had received no compensation for the damage sustained as a result of his confinement .

Relying on Article 6 § 1 o f the Convention, the applicant challenged the fairness of the proceedings before the Court of Cassation.

Relying on A rticle 8 of the Convention, he complained mainly of the damage to his relations with his daughter caused by his confinement in the Montfavet D.P.U. , and of the neurolepti c treatment allegedly administered to him without his consent, which he consid ered an unjustified intrusion into his private life . He also complained that he had been assign ed to the Amaryllis retirement home , a me a sure he perceived as interfe rence with his rights under Article 8 that was not in accordance with the law.

Lastly, relying on A rticles 10 and 11 of the Convention, he submitted that he had been prevented from expressing himself and , in particula r , from attending meetings of the Groupement Information Asiles (Asylum Information G roup), an association of which he was a member .

Some of these complaints were raised in combina ti on with A rticle 13 of the Convention, as he considered he had not been able to exercise the right to an effective remedy .

THE LAW

The Cour t takes note of the lett er of 12 July 2006 i nform ing it of the applicant ’ s death . T he lett e r of 4 N ovemb er 2006 informed it that the person s responsible for care of the applicant ’ s sole heir, having consulted the guardianship judge, had not considered it judicious for her to take over and continue this application .

The Cour t notes this de cision and finds that there are no special circumstances in the case affecting respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and requiring the further examination of the application under A rticle 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

S. D ollé A.B. Baka , Registrar P resident