Search
document

Document text Analytics

SECOND VAGRANCY CASES

Doc ref: 2551/65;3155/67;3174/67;3499/68 • ECHR ID: 001-49213

Document date: October 16, 1972

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

SECOND VAGRANCY CASES

Doc ref: 2551/65;3155/67;3174/67;3499/68 • ECHR ID: 001-49213

Document date: October 16, 1972

Cited paragraphs only

The Committee of Ministers,

Having regard to Article 32 (art. 32) of the European Convention for

the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter

called "the Convention");

Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of

Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention

relating to the applications lodged by MM. LaHaye, de Wilde, Nys and

Swalens, Belgian nationals, against the Government of Belgium

(Nos. 2551/65, 3155/67, 3174/67 and 3499/68);

Whereas the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of

Ministers on 10 April 1972 and whereas the period of three months

provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1) of the Convention

has elapsed without the cases having been brought before the Court in

pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;

Whereas in their applications, introduced on 25 June 1965,

12 May 1967, 1 May 1967 and 26 December 1967 respectively, the

applicants complained of violation of several articles of the

Convention alleged to have taken place in relation to their detention

for vagrancy;

Whereas the Commission, on 17 December 1971, after having ordered the

joinder of these four applications, declared admissible the complaints

based on Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the Convention;

Whereas the Commission, during the examination of these cases,

expressed the opinion that the questions raised were the same as those

examined in its report on the de Wilde, Ooms and Versyp cases (first

"Vagrancy Cases") and referred to the judgment of the European Court

of Human Rights of 18 June 1971, in which the Court held, by nine

votes to seven, that there had been a breach of Article 5, paragraph 4

(art. 5-4) of the Convention in that the applicants had no remedy open

to them before a court against the decision ordering their detention;

Agreeing with the opinion expressed unanimously by the Commission in

accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1) of the Convention,

that the Belgian system as established by the Act of 27 November 1891

did not satisfy the requirements of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4),

of the Convention;

Having considered the proposal made by the Commission in accordance

with paragraph 3 of Article 31 (art. 31-3) of the Convention to the

effect that the Committee of Ministers should adopt in the present

cases a solution similar to that which the European Court of Human

Rights adopted in the de Wilde, Ooms and Versyp cases (first "Vagrancy

Cases");

Recalling the judgment of the Court of 18 June 1971 in the first

"Vagrancy Cases" and the communication of the Belgian Government of

13 October 1971 informing the Committee of Ministers of the new law

promulgated in Belgium on 6 August 1971 (CM (71) 160);

Recalling its decision of 18 January 1972 expressing the

satisfaction of the Committee of Ministers with the legislative

measures introduced in Belgium;

Recalling also the second judgment of the Court of 10 March 1972

in the de Wilde, Ooms and Versyp cases (first "Vagrancy Cases") that

the applicants' claims for damages were not well-founded;

Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1

(art. 32-1) of the Convention,

(a) Decides that the Belgian system as formerly established by the

Act of 27 November 1891 did not satisfy the requirements of Article 5,

paragraph 4 (art. 5-4) of the Convention on Human Rights;

(b) Renews its satisfaction with the legislative measures introduced

by the Belgian authorities in order to bring the Belgian internal law

into harmony with the relevant provision of the European Convention on

Human Rights;

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant