Verfahrensfairness und Erstellung eines Sachverständigengutachtens. Art. 6 Abs. 1 (no violation)

Transcription

1 1 Verfahrensfairness und Erstellung eines Sachverständigengutachtens EGMR, Constantinides/GRE, 76438/12, 50 in casu ging es um ein graphologisches Gutachten If a court decides that an expert assessment is needed, the defence should have the opportunity to put questions to the experts, to challenge their findings and to examine them directly at the trial The Court has thus concluded that the right of a person charged with a criminal offence to examine experts is protected by the general principle set forth in Article 6 1 and is to be examined under that paragraph, whilst having due regard to the guarantees of paragraph 3. Sufficient counterbalancing factors in the applicant s case as he appointed his own expert, who submitted three reports and testified at the hearing. The requirements of the adversarial principle were therefore satisfied in his case. Art. 6 Abs. 1 (no EGMR, C.B./AUT, 30465/06 (2013), 40 The defence should have an opportunity to formulate questions to the experts, to challenge them and to examine them directly at the trial. In certain circumstances the refusal to allow an alternative expert examination of material evidence may be regarded as a breach of Article 6 1. EGMR, Matytsina /RUS, 58428/10 (2014), 175 ff. In sum, when the trial started the court had before it only expert reports obtained in casu ging es um ein psychiatrisches Gutachten by the prosecution without any participation of the defence. As such, this is not contrary to the Convention, provided that in the trial proceedings the defence had sufficient procedural tools to examine that evidence and effectively challenge it before the court. In sum, although opinions by specialists and experts can be used in evidence, and both may be professionals in a particular field, the role of a specialist and the weight of his opinion is not, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, identical to that of an expert. The defence did not participate in the process of obtaining expert reports at the investigation stage. In any event, any opinion of a specialist would be of a lesser weight than that of the expert. Art. 6 Abs. 1 und Abs. 3 lit. d EMRK (no Art. 6 Abs. 1 EMRK ( EGMR, Khodorkovskiy and Lebedev/RUS, 11082/06 (2013), 725 ff. Gutachten von Ernst and Young und Price Waterhouse Coopers The accused should be entitled to seek and produce evidence under the same conditions as the prosecution ( 728). In theory the defence could challenge an expert report produced by the prosecution and ask the court to commission a fresh expert examination. However, to obtain such a fresh examination it was incumbent on the defence to persuade the court that the report produced by the prosecution was incomplete or deficient. The Court notes that the defence was unable to call some of the experts who had prepared the reports at the request of the prosecution, and to cast Art. 6 Abs. 1und Abs. 3 lit. d EMRK (

2 2 doubt on their credibility ( 730). It may be hard to challenge a report by an expert without the assistance of another expert in the relevant field. Thus, the mere right of the defence to ask the court to commission another expert examination does not suffice. To realise that right effectively the defence must have the same opportunity to introduce their own expert evidence. ( 731). Die Verhältnismässigkeit einer Sanktion EGMR (GK), Vinter/UK, 66069/09 u.a. (2013), 102 EGMR, Haidn/GER (2011), 6587/04, 107 EGMR, Léger/FRA, 19324/02 (2006), 72 EGMR, Harkins and Edwards/UK, 9146/07 (2012), 139 EKMR Altun/GER, 10308/83 (1983) A grossly disproportionate sentence would violate Article 3 of the Convention; this test will only on rare occasions be met. In relation to the imposition of a penalty, (...) matters of appropriate sentencing largely fall outside the scope of the Convention, but has not excluded that an arbitrary or disproportionately lengthy sentence might in some circumstances raise issues under the Convention. The appropriate length of detention or other sentence which should be served by a person after conviction by a competent court largely falls outside the scope of the Court. The Court would not exclude that a sentence imposed after conviction under the felony murder rule could, in a sufficiently exceptional case, amount to a grossly disproportionate sentence. A possible violation of Article 3 is not excluded if extradition ( ) would entail an unjustified or disproportionate sentence. ( (no Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a EMRK (no (no Rehabilitation als in Europa wichtigster Vollzugsauftrag EGMR (GK), Murray/NED, 10511/10 (2016) 101 EGMR, Trabelsi/BEL, 140/10 (2014), 137 EGMR (GK), Vinter/UK, 66069/09 u.a. (2013), 111, 114 It would be incompatible with human dignity to deprive a person of his freedom without striving towards his rehabilitation. None of the procedures provided for amounts to a review mechanism requiring the national authorities to ascertain, on the basis of objective, pre-established criteria of which the prisoner had precise cognisance at the time of imposition of the ( ) sentence, whether ( ) the prisoner has changed and progressed to such an extent that continued detention can no longer be justified on legitimate penological grounds. A prisoner cannot be detained unless there are legitimate penological grounds for that detention; there is also now clear support in European and international law for the principle that all prisoners ( ) be offered the possibility of rehabilitation and the prospect ( ( (extradition case) (

3 3 EGMR (GK), Öcalan (no. 2)/TUR, 24069/03 (2014), 198 EGMR, Haidn/GER, 6587/04 (2011), 107 of release if that rehabilitation is achieved. The Court ( ) confirms the principle that all prisoners, ( ) must have a possibility of reforming and rehabilitating and the prospect of release if such rehabilitation is achieved. Leaving a detainee in a state of uncertainty over a long time as to his future, notably as to the duration of his imprisonment, or removing from a detainee any prospect of release might also give rise to an issue under Article 3. These principles must apply, mutatis mutandis, to a person's continued detention in prison for preventive purposes after he has fully served his prison sentence, as is here at issue. ( (no Kausale Verbindung zwischen Sachurteil und fortdauernder (Präventiv-)Haft EGMR, Haidn/GER, 6587/04 (2011), 85, 88 The applicant's detention for preventive purposes after can be considered as justified under Article 5 1 (a) only if it still occurred after his conviction for rape by the Passau Regional Court. In other words, the applicant's detention must result from, follow and depend upon or occur by virtue of that conviction ; there must be a sufficient causal connection between that conviction and the deprivation of liberty. The Court ( ) considers that ( ) the detention for preventive purposes ( ) had not been provided for and was not even possible under the judgment convicting him of rape, it cannot be regarded as having ensued by virtue of that criminal conviction simply because the order placing him in detention for preventive purposes referred to it and occurred while he was serving the corresponding sentence. ( ) There was no sufficient causal connection between the applicant's conviction and his detention for preventive purposes, ordered retrospectively. Therefore, his detention was not justified under sub-paragraph (a) of Article 5 1. EGMR, Klinkenbuss/GER, 53157/11 (2016), 58 The reasonableness of the extension of a placement in a psychiatric hospital should be subject to particular scrutiny the longer the detention lasts. Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a EMRK ( Geeignete Haftbedingungen für psychische kranke/gefährliche Inhaftierte EGMR (GK), Murray/NED, 10511/10 (2016), 108 ff. To comply with obligations under Article 3 the Court considers that it is firstly required that an assessment be made of those prisoners needs as regards treatment (be they medical, psychological or psychiatric) with a view to facilitating their rehabilitation and reducing the risk of their reoffending. (

4 4 EGMR, Kadusic/CH, 43977/13 (2018), Le requérant a indiqué qu il était incarcéré à la prison. La Cour estime par ailleurs que le refus du requérant de se soumettre à un traitement psychiatrique quelconque ne peut pas justifier l inadéquation de son lieu de placement depuis des années. Le requérant se trouve, depuis plus de quatre ans et demi après l expiration de sa peine d emprisonnement (mars 2013), dans une institution manifestement inadaptée aux troubles dont il souffre. Il s ensuit que la privation du requérant subie à la suite de l arrêt du 22 août 2012 n était pas compatible avec les objectifs de la condamnation initiale. EGMR, Bergmann/GER 23279/14 (2016),, 125 The prison staff comprised one psychiatrist, four psychologists, five social workers and twenty-five members of the general prison service for a total of thirty detainees at the time. It considers that this staffing situation, which was similar to that in a psychiatric hospital run in the same Land, put the authorities in a position to address the applicant s mental disorder The Court observes that the Regional Court, in line with the repeated finding by expert W., considered it essential that the applicant be offered treatment to reduce his sadistic fantasies and his libido, and thus his dangerousness. EGMR, Haidn/GER 6587/04 (2011), 94 The detention of the applicant as a mental health patient could only be lawful for the purposes of sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 1 if effected in a hospital, clinic or other appropriate institution. In the present case, the applicant was placed in an ordinary prison ( ). There is no substantial difference in practice between the execution of a (long) prison sentence and that of a preventive detention order. EGMR, Glien/GER, 7345/12 (2013), 95 f. Having regard to the applicant s conditions of detention and the lack of any substantial change in the medical or therapeutic care given to him as a person of unsound mind, the Court is, however, not persuaded that the applicant has been offered the therapeutic environment appropriate for a person detained as a mental health patient. The applicant s conduct or attitude does not exempt the domestic authorities from providing persons detained as mental health patients with a medical and therapeutic environment appropriate for their condition. ( (no Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. e EMRK ( ( Haftüberprüfung EGMR, Derungs/CH, 52089/09 (2016), 49, 52 Haftüberprüfung innerhalb kurzer Frist La Cour rappelle que, dans le cas d espèce, un délai de presque onze mois s est écoulé entre la demande de libération du requérant et la première décision judiciaire, du tribunal administratif. La Cour constate que la partie la plus importante du retard à statuer a été causée par l exigence, dans le canton de Art. 5 Abs. 4 EMRK 11 Monate zu lang (

5 5 EGMR, Fuchser/CH, 52089/09 (2006), 47 ff. Haftüberprüfung innerhalb kurzer Frist EGMR, C.W./CH, 67725/10 (2014), 48 Rechtmässigkeit der Haft (Verlängerung stationäre Massnahme/Aktualität des Gutachtens) Zurich, d épuiser une voie de recours hiérarchique ne présentant pas en soi les garanties propres à celles d un «tribunal» au sens de la Convention. La Convention oblige les États contractants à organiser leurs juridictions de manière à leur permettre de répondre aux exigences de cette disposition, notamment quant au délai raisonnable Un délai de quatre mois et six jours entre le moment où le requérant a demandé sa libération et celui où elle a été octroyée par le tribunal de district de Zurich, au terme de la procédure de recours contre une décision de l office de l exécution judiciaire, a été jugé excessif par la Cour Il est vrai que la décision litigieuse s appuyait sur l avis des psychiatres du Centre de Rheinau au sein duquel le requérant suivait sa thérapie mais cette circonstance, à elle seule, ne soulève pas de problème sous l angle de l article 5 de la Convention. Il y a lieu de souligner que le requérant ne soutenait ni que le lien de confiance avec son équipe soignante était rompu, ni que les diagnostics quant à la réalité de sa maladie étaient erronés, ni que le traitement médicamenteux qu il suivait au Centre de Rheinau n était pas adapté. Ses divergences avec l équipe soignante, dont il ne contestait et ne conteste nullement l impartialité et le respect des règles de déontologie, ne portaient pas sur le bien-fondé de la mesure institutionnelle mais essentiellement sur sa durée Aux yeux de la Cour, en l absence de contestation caractérisée quant à la validité scientifique et déontologique de cet avis et des rapports d expertise psychiatriques de 2008 et 2009, un avis médical tiers n était pas nécessaire. Art. 5 Abs. 4 EMRK 4 Monate und 6 Tage zu lang ( (no