CASE OF ROOMAN v. BELGIUM
Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano
6. The applicant was born in 1957. He is detained in the Paifve social-protection institution (“the Paifve EDS”). 7. In 1997 the applicant was convicted of theft and of sexual assault, by the Liège Court of Appeal and the Eupen Criminal Court respectively. The prison sentences were due to end on 20 February 2004. 8. While imprisoned, the applicant committed offences in respect of which fresh proceedings were brought. On 16 June 2003 the Committals Division (chambre du conseil) of the Liège Court of First Instance decided, pursuant to section 7 of the Law of 9 April 1930 on Social Protection in respect of Mental Defectives, Habitual Offenders and Persons Convicted of certain Sexual Offences (the “Social Protection Act”), and on the basis, inter alia, of a neuropsychiatric report by Dr L., dated 15 December 2001, and a report by psychologist H., dated 20 August 2002, to order the applicant’s preventive detention. 9. On 1 August 2003 the Indictment Division of the Liège Court of Appeal upheld that decision. The applicant did not appeal on points of law. 10. On 15 January 2004, based among other elements on a psychiatric report by Dr V. dated 23 September 2003, the Minister of Justice also decided that the applicant was to be detained in a psychiatric institution, pursuant to section 21 of the Social Protection Act, as a continuation of the sentences imposed in 1997. 11. On 21 January 2004 the applicant entered the Paifve EDS, located in the French-speaking region, further to a decision of 16 October 2003 by the Social Protection Board for the Lantin Prison psychiatric wing (the “CDS”). 12. On an unspecified date the applicant made an initial application for release on a trial basis. 13. On 27 January 2006 the CDS postponed its examination of the request for release on a trial basis until March 2006, and recommended finding an institution that could admit the applicant and provide him with therapy in German, the only language he could understand and speak. 14. The application was examined by the CDS on 9 June 2006. At the hearing, the head of the Paifve EDS acknowledged that the institution was unable to provide the therapeutic care recommended by the experts who had already been consulted, given that no German-speaking doctor, therapist, psychologist, social worker or warden was employed in the institution. 15. In consequence, the CDS held: “It is undisputed that the detainee speaks only German, and that the medical, welfare and prison staff in the institution in which he is detained are unable to provide him with any therapeutic or welfare assistance; he has been abandoned to his fate without any treatment since his arrival in Paifve (on 21 January 2004), even if some individuals have, on a voluntary basis, made considerable efforts to explain to him his situation, which he experiences as an injustice; In the present case, the two-fold legal aim of the preventive detention, namely protection of society and of the patient’s health, can only be achieved if the deprivation of liberty is accompanied by the treatment necessitated by the detainee’s mental health; since this double condition is not fulfilled, [Mr] Rooman’s detention is unlawful; ...” 16. The CDS postponed its examination of the application for release on a trial basis until a hearing in September 2006, pending the appointment of German-speaking employees to the Paifve EDS. 17. In accordance with an order by the chairperson of the CDS of 24 September 2006, the applicant was transferred to Verviers Prison so that its German-language psychosocial team could assess his mental health and ascertain whether he posed a danger to the public. On 30 October 2006 the CDS confirmed this order and postponed the case to a later date. 18. On 26 January 2007 the CDS dismissed the application for release on parole. It had been indicated in a report of 24 January 2007, drawn up by the German-language psychosocial team in Verviers Prison, that the applicant had a psychotic personality and paranoid character traits (high self-opinion, feeling of omnipotence, lack of self-criticism and threatening remarks) and that he was refusing any treatment. Furthermore, the CDS noted that there was no institution in Belgium which could meet the security and language requirements in the applicant’s specific case; the only German-language hospital which could be considered was an open hospital, and it had thus to be ruled out in view of the applicant’s mental health. 19. On 14 April 2008 the applicant applied for day release. On 5 June 2008 the CDS noted that it had proved impossible to provide any treatment and that the search for a German-language institution had proved unsuccessful. Accordingly, it ordered the Eupen remand prison to prepare a plan for release on a trial basis, and ordered a new expert report in order to assess the level of danger posed by the applicant. It adjourned examination of the request sine die. 20. Having received a new application from the applicant for release on a trial basis, the CDS held, in a decision of 5 May 2009: “There has been no progress in Mr Rooman’s situation; progress cannot occur until he is in a setting where he can be understood in his own language, like any citizen of this country. A single member of the prison staff, a nurse [A.W.], is temporarily providing him with social contact, whereas a psychiatrist and/or a psychologist should be available to him. The prison authorities have not put forward any kind of solution to this problem, of which its various services are fully aware. Worse, as those authorities are unable to provide him with the necessary treatment, they seem to have resigned themselves to a role that extends no further than an unfair repressive detention. The medical reports and [Dr Ro.’s] expert report indicate that Rooman, who continues to present a danger to society, cannot be released without support and preparation in an institutional setting, something that cannot currently be provided in Belgium, but is available abroad.” 21. In consequence, the CDS invited the Eupen remand prison to prepare, together with applicant, a plan for release on a trial basis, and encouraged the authorities to take, rapidly, the measures necessary to improve the applicant’s situation. It adjourned the case to a later date. 22. On 13 October 2009 the CDS found: “In the years since this file was opened (October 2003), the persons involved in this case have been thwarted by the fact that the detainee speaks and understands only one language, and that the authorities have no German-speaking staff available for him, with the exception of one nurse [A.W.] (who is apparently due to retire in the near future); In September 2005 Doctor [Ri.], expert, wrote that relaxation of the detainee’s regime ‘is possible only in parallel with successful treatment, assessed by predefined steps. The treatment must begin in a secure establishment, then in a closed institution...’ Given that treatment in Germany is impossible, it was to begin in Paifve with German-speaking psychiatrists and therapists; Since that time the detainee’s situation has not changed: he converses with and leaves the building only in the company of the sole German-speaking member of staff, and a treatment programme has not even been put in place. No satisfactory follow-up has been given to the requests by the [Social Protection] Board for an end to be put to this unlawful situation for Mr Rooman, who is deprived of his freedom in order, on the one hand, to protect society from possible dangerous conduct by him, and on the other, to provide him with the treatment necessary for his reinsertion;... In the light of the authorities’ failure, the question now before the Board is whether there exists, outside the social-protection facility, a unit or persons who could provide home-based therapy for Mr Rooman; ...” 23. On those grounds, and pointing out that German was one of the national languages and that the applicant was thus entitled to speak, be understood and receive treatment in that language, the CDS asked the Eupen remand prison to search in and around Verviers and Eupen for either a mental health unit, or a doctor or clinic, which could provide home-based therapy for the applicant in his mother tongue. It reserved its decision on the application for release on parole. 24. On 12 January 2010 the applicant submitted pleadings in support of his application for release. He criticised the failure to provide him with therapeutic care and the effect on his health of any prospect of seeing his situation improve. As his main submission, he requested his immediate release on the grounds of the illegality of his detention. Alternatively, he asked that the CDS impose an obligation on the relevant authorities to take all necessary measures so that he would receive the treatment required by his mental-health condition in his mother tongue. 25. By an interlocutory decision of 13 January 2010, the CDS noted that the applicant’s situation had not changed and that the reply from the Eupen judicial assistance unit left no hope of ensuring that the applicant would receive appropriate treatment, in a secure establishment or elsewhere. The CDS considered that it was necessary to attempt one last plea to the Minister of Justice, whose intervention had previously led to some changes, even if they were insufficient to resolve the problem. The CDS accordingly ordered that an “official denunciation” of the applicant’s situation be sent to the Minister of Justice. 26. On 29 April 2010 the CDS noted that the Minister of Justice had not replied to its submission and that the applicant’s situation had worsened, in that he could no longer count on help from the German-speaking nurse A.W., who had left the Paifve EDS. The CDS continued: “It follows from the report [from the psychosocial department] of 30 March 2010 that, except for occasional meetings with a social worker “who speaks German”, the detainee has no social contact in his language and that he has had no opportunity for several months to converse and to gain a fresh perspective in the outside world; the doctor and psychologist who signed this report do not seem particularly convinced by the completion of the ‘ongoing measures (taken) by the department to enable a German-language psychologist to intervene occasionally to provide care for the German-speaking patients in the EDS’; Mr Rooman’s situation is frozen: an ill individual, he is detained in a prison medical institution where no one is able to provide the treatment to which he is entitled; the Minister and his departments are turning a deaf ear, with no concern for the despair to which this manifestly unjust attitude may give rise; In spite of the unlawfulness of Mr Rooman’s detention, his health condition means that release cannot be envisaged unless it is accompanied by therapy and practical support; The [Social Protection] Board has no powers, firstly, to restore the detainee’s basic rights, namely, the rights to liberty, to health care and to respect for his humanity, and secondly, to compel the Minister to put an end to this situation, which his administration has been fully aware of for more than six years.” 27. The CDS decided, while “remaining open to any proposals”, to leave the applicant’s situation unchanged; in other words, it rejected his application for release. 28. The applicant appealed against that decision to the Higher Social Protection Board (“the CSDS”). 29. In parallel, the applicant made an urgent application to the President of the Liège Court of First Instance, in order to have his detention declared unlawful and obtain his immediate release, or, alternatively, to obtain a decision ordering the Belgian State to provide him with the medical care required by his situation. 30. By an order of 12 May 2010, the president of the court held that he did not have jurisdiction, on the grounds that the CDS was the lawful body with power to release the applicant or decide on his continued detention. 31. On 27 May 2010 the CSDS upheld the CDS’s decision of 29 April 2010 to maintain the applicant in detention. Unlike the CDS, the CSDS held that the applicant’s detention was perfectly legal, given that he had been lawfully detained and that he did not fulfil the conditions for definitive or conditional release. Under section 18 of the Social Protection Act, release could only be ordered if the detainee’s mental condition had improved sufficiently and if the conditions for his social reinsertion had been satisfied. However, this was not the situation here. The CSDS also considered that the mere fact that the applicant spoke only German did not mean that the authorities had not taken all the necessary steps to provide him with the treatment required by his condition. 32. The applicant appealed on points of law, alleging a violation of Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention. 33. On 8 September 2010 the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on points of law. In response to the argument alleging a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, it held that legal reasons had been given for the CSDS’s decision and that it had been justified in law. It found: “As preventive detention is primarily a security measure, the therapeutic action necessitated by such detention is not legally required in order for the detention to be lawful, even if its aim, secondary to that of protecting society, is to provide the detained person with the necessary treatment. The social protection boards derive from section 14 (2) of the Act the power, rather than the obligation, to order, in a decision giving specific reasons, placement in an institution that is appropriate in terms of the security measures and the treatment to be given. It follows that execution of the preventive detention measure does not become unlawful solely because it is implemented in one of the institutions created by the government for that purpose, rather than in another institution specifically designated for the possible treatment it might provide.” 34. The argument alleging a violation of Article 3 of the Convention was declared inadmissible, since its examination would require a factual verification of the conditions in which the preventive detention was being conducted and such an examination fell outside the scope of the Court of Cassation’s jurisdiction. For the remainder, the Court of Cassation considered that the CSDS had replied to the applicant’s complaint in finding that the fact that he spoke only German did not mean that the relevant authorities had not taken all the necessary steps to provide him with the care he required. 35. On 13 November 2013 the applicant again applied for release. 36. A report by the psychosocial department of the Paifve EDS, dated 13 January 2014, reiterated that the applicant had a poor command of the French language, and spoke only a few words of French, which did not enable him to conduct a conversation; in consequence, he had very little contact with the other patients and members of staff. The report also referred to a single meeting between the applicant and a German-speaking psychologist in June 2010. The report noted an improvement in the applicant’s behaviour; he was apparently less aggressive and intolerant than before. Further, the applicant had never expressed a wish to meet members of the psychosocial team on a regular basis. The report concluded that he should remain in detention in the Paifve EDS, citing among other reasons his “untreated mental health problems”. 37. On 24 January 2014 the CDS noted, firstly, the content of the reports by Dr Ri., of 5 September 2005, and Dr Ro., of 21 January 2009, which stressed the need for psychopharmacological and psychotherapeutic treatment in a secure establishment, then in a closed institution, before an open facility could be envisaged. The CDS noted that, in the interim, the various attempts to find a solution to the language problem had not succeeded in bringing about a significant improvement in the applicant’s health: the rare outings accompanied by a German-speaking member of the prison staff had been abandoned when this employee, who was not replaced, became unavailable; attempts to find a German-language institution, doctor or therapist had met with failure; no follow-up seemed to have been given to the announcement that a minimum number of German-speaking staff were to be recruited, and the applicant had, of his own accord, declined the assistance of the German-speaking social worker with whom he had occasionally met. The CDS rejected the application for release on parole, finding that the conditions for release (an improvement in the applicant’s mental state and guarantees for his social rehabilitation) were not met. With regard to the alleged absence of treatment in German, the CDS specified: “The detainee claims that he is not receiving the appropriate treatment for his mental health condition in German, his mother tongue, without however describing or even mentioning the treatment that he has allegedly been denied and that he would agree to accept or in which he would take part. The mere fact that he only speaks German does not mean that the Paifve social-protection facility has not taken all the necessary steps to provide him with the care his condition requires. While, as the applicant points out in his submissions, it is for the relevant authorities to take all the necessary measures for his health, it is not, however, within the [Social Protection] Board’s powers to release a detainee who claims to be the victim of shortcomings on the part of the authorities... Nor does the Board have jurisdiction to issue orders to the authorities or to third parties, [or] to penalise their actions or shortcomings ...” 38. On 3 April 2014 the CSDS upheld the decision by the CDS, finding, among other points: “Contrary to what he alleges in his pleadings, the detainee receives all the treatment required by his condition, from competent and qualified staff in the Paifve EDS, and his specific medical needs are fully taken into account. In spite of the treatment given, the detainee’s mental condition has not yet improved sufficiently, on account of his paranoid and psychopathic character traits, his lack of self-criticism and his constant demand. The detainee is thus clearly wrong in attributing the lack of improvement in his mental condition to the language issue alone. The continued preventive detention in a EDS that is adapted to his medical condition of an individual who would represent a danger to the public in the event of release, where his mental condition has not sufficiently improved and the conditions for his social rehabilitation are not met, is not unlawful and does not amount to a violation of the provisions of the [Convention].” 39. On 25 June 2014 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision by the CSDS on the grounds that it had not addressed the applicant’s argument that he was not receiving care appropriate to his situation, in view of the fact that he spoke and understood only German and that no German-speaking staff members were available in the facility where he was being held. The case was sent back to the CSDS with a differently constituted membership. 40. On 22 July 2014 the CSDS issued an interlocutory finding, requesting the CDS to appoint a group of German-speaking experts to update the psychiatric report of 21 January 2009. It instructed the head of the Paifve EDS institution to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the requisite care was made available, by at least providing the services of a German-speaking psychiatrist and psychologist. It ordered that the case be reopened and scheduled a hearing for 17 October 2014. 41. The Court has not been informed of the progress of those proceedings. 42. In the meantime, on 28 March 2014 the applicant brought proceedings against the Belgian State before the President of the French-language Brussels Court of First Instance, as the judge responsible for hearing urgent applications in application of Article 584 of the Judicial Code. He asked for his release or, as a subsidiary measure, the imposition of the measures required by his state of health. 43. By an interlocutory order of 4 July 2014, the president of the court asked the head of the Paifve EDS and Dr B. from the psychosocial unit in that EDS to submit statements concerning the treatment available in the Paifve EDS and the treatment that had in fact been provided to the applicant. 44. Statements submitted by the head of the Paifve EDS and by Dr B. on 28 August 2014 indicated that the applicant now had access to consultations with a German-speaking psychologist and that the authorities had made contact with a German-speaking psychiatrist who had agreed to meet the applicant. 45. In an order of 10 October 2014, the president of the court noted that, until September 2014, the applicant had never had access to a psychiatrist who could communicate with him in German. He had had access to a German-speaking psychologist, outside the EDS, between May and November 2010. He noted that the consultations with the psychologist had come to an end not, as alleged by the State in its pleadings, because the applicant no longer wished to attend them, but because of late payment by the Belgian State of the psychologist’s fees and expenses. The consultations with the psychologist had, however, resumed in July 2014. The president then noted that, until April 2010, the applicant had benefitted from the presence of and care provided by a German-speaking nurse, that that nurse had in the meantime left the Paifve EDS, but that since August 2014 he had been authorised to accompany the applicant on outings. Lastly, the order noted that the applicant had had contacts with a German-speaking social worker, but that he had declined the latter’s services in February 2014. 46. With regard to the main request, the president held that he did not have jurisdiction to order the applicant’s release, as only the social protection bodies had power to do so. With regard to the subsidiary request, the president noted that the applicant had not had access to the mental health treatment required by his condition, and that there was prima facie a violation of his right of access to health care. His situation amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. In consequence, the president ordered the Belgian State to appoint a German-speaking psychiatrist and medical auxiliary for the applicant, subject to a penalty in the event of non-compliance, and to put in place the care routinely provided to French-speaking detainees suffering from a mental illness similar to that of the applicant. 47. On the basis of the information produced, no appeal has been lodged against this order. According to the applicant’s representative, the Belgian State appointed a German-speaking psychiatrist and psychologist, who visited the applicant several times. However, these visits stopped at the end of 2015. 48. In the meantime, on 2 May 2014 the applicant had filed a negligence claim against the Belgian State, on the basis of Article 1382 of the Civil Code. 49. By a judgment of 9 September 2016, the French-language Brussels Court of First Instance held the fact of having failed to provide the applicant with psychological treatment in his mother tongue between 2010 and 2014 to be negligent. It held, in particular: “It is undeniable that the psychiatric and psychological treatment which [the applicant] must enjoy must be provided to him in German, the only language in which he is fluent and, moreover, one of the three national languages in Belgium. However, between 2010 and 2014 [the applicant] received no medico-psychiatric treatment in his own language. Whatever the quality – which is, indeed, undisputed – of the care provided to detainees in the Paifve [EDS], it is totally inappropriate for [the applicant’s] mental-health condition merely on account of the fact that it is not available in German. In spite of the official and repeated denunciations of this situation by the Social Protection Board to the Belgian State since 2010, the latter has taken no steps to correct it. In addition, it has produced no evidence of the least action taken by it to that end. This failure to act amounts to negligence within the meaning of Article 1382 of the Civil Code. ... Moreover, and as [the applicant] also submits, Articles 3 and 5 [of the Convention] require the Belgian State to take the necessary measures to provide him with access to the basic care necessitated by his mental health. ... In the present case, the applicant’s vulnerability on account of the very nature of his psychological disorder and the absence of any genuine possibility of contact in his language have necessarily exacerbated his feelings of distress and anxiety. It is immaterial that, in any event, the [applicant’s] state of mental health does not allow for his release. The mere fact of having been detained for an indefinite period without appropriate care amounts in the present case to a violation of Articles 3 and 5 [of the Convention]. Contrary to the submissions of the Belgian State, the fact that [the applicant] is not always receptive to psychological, medical and social therapy does not allow for minimisation of the Belgian State’s negligent attitude towards a person who suffers from a mental disorder, whose discernment is, by assumption, uncertain. By the same token, at the risk of setting aside the lived experience of the person suffering from a mental disorder, [the applicant’s] stable conduct within the institution does not suffice to establish that he received appropriate care for his condition.” 50. Finding that this absence of treatment had caused mental suffering to the applicant, the court ordered the State to pay him 75,000 euros (“EUR”), an amount assessed ex aequo et bono, in compensation for the period for the January 2010 to October 2014. 51. According to information provided on 19 June 2017 by his representative, the applicant was due to lodge an appeal against this judgment. He challenges the period accepted by the court and argues that the lack of treatment pre-dated 2010; he also complains about a lack of treatment in 2016 and the decision to award compensation ex aequo et bono rather than on a daily basis.