Work during detention
AS TO THE LAW I. ON THE QUESTIONS OF JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY RAISED IN THE PRESENT CASES 44. In its memorials of February and June 1970, the Government requested the Court, principally, "to declare that the applications introduced against Belgium by Jacques De Wilde on 17th June 1966, Franz Ooms on 20th May 1966 and Edgard Versyp on 16th August 1966, were not admissible as the applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies and that therefore they should have been rejected by the European Commission of Human Rights under Article 26 and Article 27 (3) (art. 26, art. 27-3) of the Convention". The Commission, for its part, requested the Court in its memorial of April 1970: "(1) In the first place: - to hold inadmissible the Belgian Government ’ s request that it be declared that the Commission should have rejected the three applications under Articles 26 and 27, paragraph (3) (art. 26, art. 27-3), of the Convention, on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to pronounce on decisions by the Commission concerning the admissibility of applications; (2) alternatively: - to declare the said request inadmissible on the ground that the Belgian Government is debarred from making such a request to the Court since it did not raise the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies before the Commission at the stage where the admissibility of the applications was under consideration; (3) in the further alternative: - to declare the said request ill-founded since, at the time when the three applications were submitted to the Commission, there was no effective remedy in Belgian law against decisions by magistrates in vagrancy cases". 45. At the oral hearings, the Agent of the Government submitted that it should please the Court: - "to find that it is fully competent to decide on the admissibility of the applications in the cases now before it and in particular to verify whether the applicants have or have not exhausted the domestic remedies"; - "to find that the applications ... are inadmissible since the applicants failed to observe the provisions of Article 26 (art. 26) of the Convention". The failure to observe Article 26 (art. 26) is alleged to have consisted not only in the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies but also, in the case of Edgard Versyp, in a failure to observe the six-month time-limit. The Delegates of the Commission maintained without change the submissions on this point contained in their memorial of April 1970. 46. The Court is thus asked to consider, before any examination of the merits: (1) whether it has jurisdiction to examine the contentions of the Government based on the alleged failure to comply with Article 26 (art. 26) of the Convention, either as regards the exhaustion of domestic remedies or as regards the six-month time-limit; (2) if so, whether the Government must be held to be precluded from raising the inadmissibility of the applications, either on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies or, alternatively, in the case of Versyp, on the ground of his being out of time; (3) if the Government is not held to be precluded, whether its contentions in regard to inadmissibility are well-founded. A. As to the jurisdiction of the court to examine the submissions of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and of delay made by the government against the applications accepted by the commission 47. In order to judge whether it has jurisdiction to examine the submissions of the Government objecting to the examination of the present applications, the Court refers to the text of the Convention and especially to Article 45 (art. 45) which determines its jurisdiction ratione materiae. This Article (art. 45) specifies that "the jurisdiction of the Court shall extend to all cases (" toutes les affaires") concerning the interpretation and application of the ... Convention which the High Contracting Parties or the Commission shall refer to it in accordance with Article 48 (art. 48)". Under this provision, as the Court pointed out in its judgment of 9th February 1967 ("Linguistic" case, Series A, p. 18), "the basis of the jurisdiction ratione materiae of the Court is established once the case raises a question of the interpretation or application of the Convention". 48. The phrase "cases concerning the interpretation and application of the ... Convention", which is found in Article 45 (art. 45), is remarkable for its width. The very general meaning which has to be attributed to it is confirmed by the English text of paragraph (1) of Article 46 (art. 46-1) which is drafted in even wider terms ("all matters") than Article 45 (art. 45) ("all cases"). 49. True, it follows from Article 45 (art. 45) that the Court may exercise its jurisdiction only in regard to cases which have been duly brought before it and its supervision must necessarily be directed first to the observance of the conditions laid down in Articles 47 and 48 (art. 47, art. 48). Once a case is duly referred to it, however, the Court is endowed with full jurisdiction and may thus take cognisance of all questions of fact and of law which may arise in the course of the consideration of the case. 50. It is therefore impossible to see how questions concerning the interpretation and application of Article 26 (art. 26) raised before the Court during the hearing of a case should fall outside its jurisdiction. That possibility is all the less conceivable in that the rule on the exhaustion of domestic remedies delimits the area within which the Contracting States have agreed to answer for wrongs alleged against them before the organs of the Convention, and the Court has to ensure the observance of the provisions relating thereto just as of the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention and its Protocols. The rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies, which dispenses States from answering before an international body for their acts before they have had an opportunity to put matters right through their own legal system, is also one of the generally recognised principles of international law to which Article 26 (art. 26) makes specific reference. As for the six months ’ rule, it results from a special provision in the Convention and constitutes an element of legal stability. 51. This conclusion is in no way invalidated by the powers conferred on the Commission under Article 27 (art. 27) of the Convention as regards the admissibility of applications. The task which this Article (art. 27) assigns to the Commission is one of sifting; the Commission either does or does not accept the applications. Its decisions to reject applications which it considers to be inadmissible are without appeal as are, moreover, also those by which applications are accepted; they are taken in complete independence (see mutatis mutandis, the Lawless judgment of 14th November 1960, Series A, p. 11). The decision to accept an application has the effect of leading the Commission to perform the functions laid down in Articles 28 to 31 (art. 28, art. 29, art. 30, art. 31) of the Convention and of opening up the possibility that the case may be brought before the Court; but it is not binding on the Court any more than the Court is bound by the opinion expressed by the Commission in its final report "as to whether the facts found disclose a breach by the State concerned of its obligations under the Convention" (Article 31) (art. 31). 52. For the foregoing reasons, the Court considers it has jurisdiction to examine the questions of non-exhaustion and of delay raised in the present cases. B. As to estoppels (French" forclusion ") 53. The jurisdiction of the Court to rule on the submissions made by a respondent Government based on Article 26 (art. 26) as a bar to claims directed against it, does not in any way mean that the Court should disregard the attitude adopted by the Government in this connection in the course of the proceedings before the Commission. 54. It is in fact usual practice in international and national courts that objections to admissibility should as a general rule be raised in limine litis. This, if not always mandatory, is at least a requirement of the proper administration of justice and of legal stability. The Court itself has specified in Rule 46, paragraph 1, of its Rules, that "a preliminary objection must be filed by a Party at the latest before the expiry of the time-limit fixed for the delivery of the first pleading". Doubtless, proceedings before the Court are not the same as those which took place before the Commission and usually the parties are not even the same; but they concern the same case and it results clearly from the general economy of the Convention that objections to jurisdiction and admissibility must, in principle, be raised first before the Commission to the extent that their character and the circumstances permit (compare the Stögmüller judgment of 10th November 1969, Series A, pp. 41-42, paragraph 8, and the Matznetter judgment of the same date, Series A, p. 32, paragraph 6). 55. Furthermore, there is nothing to prevent States from waiving the benefit of the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the essential aim of which is to protect their national legal order. There exists on this subject a long established international practice from which the Convention has definitely not departed as it refers, in Article 26 (art. 26), to "the generally recognised rules of international law". If there is such a waiver in the course of proceedings before the Commission (see, for example, Yearbook of the Convention, Vol. 7, pp. 258-260), it can scarcely be imagined that the Government concerned is entitled to withdraw the waiver at will after the case has been referred to the Court. 56. In examining the proceedings which took place before the Commission, the Court finds that the Government had, in its first observations on the admissibility of the applications, raised against one of the complaints of Franz Ooms grounds of inadmissibility based on non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. As the Commission considered that complaint to be manifestly ill-founded, it did not find it necessary to rule on this objection. The partial decision which it gave on this point in the Ooms case is dated 11th February 1967. At the oral hearings which followed that partial decision and the decisions of the same date in the two related cases, a member of the Commission put a question, on 6th April 1967, to the Agent of the Government about the possibility of challenging before the Conseil d ’ État magistrates ’ decisions in vagrancy matters (Sections 13 and 16 of the 1891 Act) and the Minister of Justice ’ s decisions refusing to release a detained vagrant (Sections 15 and 18 of the same Act). The Agent of the Government replied that that superior administrative court considered it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against a magistrate ’ s order (Vleminckx judgment of 21st December 1951, cf. paragraph 37 above); he underlined, however, that there was "at least one case" - Du Bois - "pending before the Conseil d ’ État in which the problem of the right to appeal against a magistrate ’ s decision had again been raised"; he further expressed his personal opinion that "a decision of the Minister refusing" to release a detained vagrant could doubtless be set aside if need be by the Conseil d ’ État "on a pure point of law". He did not, however, use this as an argument to request the Commission either to reject the applications for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies or to adjourn its decision on their admissibility. The Commission thus felt itself able to conclude that there were no domestic remedies and consequently to find in its decision of 7th April 1967, declaring the applications admissible, "that the applicants (had) observed the conditions laid down in Article 26 (art. 26) of the Convention". 57. Two months later, however, on 7th June 1967, the Conseil d ’ État delivered a judgment in which it reversed its former case-law; it declared admissible and allowed Mr. Du Bois ’ appeal for annulment of the magistrate ’ s order (see paragraph 37 above). The Government informed the Commission of this judgment in its memorial of 31st July 1967 and formally requested that the three applications be rejected as inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Counsel for the applicants expressed the view that the respondent Government "could not at this stage dispute the admissibility of the applications as this had been finally determined by the Commission ’ s decision of 7th April 1967" (paragraph 59 of the report). On 8th February 1968, the Agent of the Belgian Government repeated the request at the hearing before the Commission (paragraphs 124 and 125 of the report): he invited the Commission to give "a second decision on admissibility to the effect that the wording of the Belgian Conseil d ’ État ’ s judgment clearly establishes that (the) applicants had available to them a remedy which they did not make use of, although they could have done so". Finally, the Commission refused this request in its report adopted on 19th July 1969 (paragraph 177). The Commission recalled that "in accordance with the principles of international law referred to by Article 26 (art. 26) of the Convention an applicant is not required to exhaust a domestic remedy if, in view of the consistent case-law of the national courts, this remedy has no reasonable chance of success"; it pointed out that this was the case prior to the Du Bois judgment of 7th June 1967 as regards recourse against magistrates ’ decisions in vagrancy matters and concluded that it had been right in declaring the three applications admissible and that the above-mentioned judgment did "not constitute a new factor justifying the reopening of the decision on the admissibility of the applications". In these circumstances, the Court cannot consider that the Government is precluded from raising before it the objection of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies as regards the orders of the magistrates at Charleroi, Namur and Brussels. 58. The same is not true of the Government ’ s alternative submission that the applicant Versyp was out of time. Versyp applied to the Commission on 16th August 1966 that is more than six months after the decision of the Brussels police court of 4th November 1965, ordering his detention for vagrancy (see paragraphs 29 and 31 above). The Government argues from this that, if the Court considered that the decision was not at the time subject to any form of appeal, Versyp ’ s application to the Commission should be held to be inadmissible for failure to observe the time-limit laid down by Article 26 (art. 26) in fine of the Convention. The Court observes that this submission was never made before the Commission nor even before the Court during the written procedure: the Agent of the Government presented it for the first time in his address of 16th November 1970, that is more than three years after the Commission ’ s decision on admissibility and more than one year after the case had been brought before the Court. In these circumstances, the Court finds that the Government is precluded from submitting that Versyp ’ s application was out of time. 59. The same finding holds good for the submission of non-exhaustion of remedies made by the Government before the Court as regards the decisions of the Minister of Justice rejecting the three applicants ’ petitions for release. The applicants argued that their being kept in detention by the Minister had violated Article 5 (1) (art. 5-1) of the Convention. The Government contends that it would have been open to them to contest the said decisions before the Conseil d ’ État alleging a violation of Article 5 (art. 5), which is directly applicable in Belgian law, and that they failed to take this course. But the Government never relied, before the Commission, on Article 26 (art. 26) of the Convention on this point (cf. paragraphs 56 and 57 above); for the reasons already mentioned, it cannot do so for the first time before the Court. C. As to the substance of the contention of the government regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies 60. The Court recalls that under international law, to which Article 26 (art. 26) makes express reference, the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies demands the use only of such remedies as are available to the persons concerned and are sufficient, that is to say capable of providing redress for their complaints (Stögmüller judgment of 10th November 1969, Series A, p. 42, paragraph 11). It is also recognised that it is for the Government which raises the contention to indicate the remedies which, in its view, were available to the persons concerned and which ought to have been used by them until they had been exhausted. The information provided by the Belgian Government in this connection partly concerns the orders for detention, partly relates to the subsequent detention of the applicants. As the Court has found that the Government is precluded from making submissions based on the latter information (see paragraph 59 above), only the former part is relevant in connection with Article 26 (art. 26) of the Convention. The Government ’ s line of argument on this point underwent a clear change in the course of the proceedings. 61. It was never contested that the decisions taken by the magistrates in regard to Jacques De Wilde, Franz Ooms and Edgard Versyp were of an administrative nature and so were not subject to appeal or to proceedings in cassation (see paragraph 37 above). The Agent of the Government acknowledged too, at the first hearings before the Commission and apparently basing himself on the Vleminckx judgment of 21st December 1951, that the Conseil d ’ État would not either have allowed an appeal against the said orders for detention. After the Du Bois judgment of 7th June 1967, the Government ’ s Agent acknowledged that the former case-law was "a little out of touch with the facts in the sense that there was in fact no further administrative decision after the magistrate ’ s decision" (paragraph 120 of the Commission ’ s report). Before the Court he expressed the same view, noting that the alleged ministerial decision referred to in the Vleminckx judgment was "simply an administrative measure of execution" of the magistrate ’ s order or in other words "a purely physical operation". This point of view appears to be correct: the examination of the files of the proceedings before the magistrates shows that what actually happened was that the competent officers of the public prosecutor ’ s department were instructed by the magistrates at Charleroi, Namur and Brussels to execute their orders and to this end they "required" the directors of the institutions at Wortel and Merksplas "to receive" De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp "into (the) institution" without there being any further "decision" in the matter (see paragraphs 17, 24 and 29 above). The Minister may doubtless intervene under the 1891 Act to stop the execution of the orders for detention. In practice, however, the Minister does not as a rule use this power and he did not do so in the present cases. Yet the Agent of the Government argued before the Commission and then before the Court that it followed from the same Du Bois judgment that the magistrates ’ orders for detention for vagrancy were in fact open to challenge before the Conseil d ’ État. He added that the Du Bois case was already pending before that superior administrative court at the time when the detention of the applicants was ordered, that there existed therefore at that time a possibility of a reversal of the rule stated in the Vleminckx case and that, for this reason, the applicants were not entitled to be excused from attempting to use such a remedy. 62. The Court is unable to accept this point of view. The Court finds - without it even being necessary to examine here whether recourse to the Conseil d ’ État would have been of such a nature as to satisfy the complaints - that according to the settled legal opinion which existed in Belgium up to 7th June 1967 recourse to the Conseil d ’ État against the orders of a magistrate was thought to be inadmissible. This was the submission of the Government itself before the Conseil d ’ État in the Du Bois case. One cannot reproach the applicants that their conduct in 1965 and 1966 conformed with the view which the Government ’ s Agent continued to express at the beginning of 1967 at the hearings on admissibility before the Commission and which was prevalent in Belgium at the time. Furthermore, once the Du Bois judgment of 7th June 1967 was known, the applicants were not in a position to benefit from the possible remedy it seemed to open up because, well before that judgment was pronounced, the time-limit of sixty days prescribed by Article 4 of the Regent ’ s Decree of 23rd August 1948 on the procedure before the administrative division of the Conseil d ’ État had expired. The Court is therefore of the opinion that, as regards the complaints concerning the detention orders, the Government ’ s submission of inadmissibility on the ground of failure to observe the rule on the exhaustion of domestic remedies is not well-founded. II. AS TO THE MERITS 63. In regard to the merits of the present cases the Government and the Commission in substance reiterated at the oral hearings the submissions contained in their respective memorials. The Government requested the Court: "to find that the decisions and measures which are the subject of the applications brought against Belgium by Jacques De Wilde on 17th June 1966, by Franz Ooms on 20th May 1966 and by Edgard Versyp on 16th August 1966 are not in conflict with Belgium ’ s obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights." For its part, the Commission asked the Court to "decide: (1) whether or not the jurisdiction exercised by the magistrate in deciding to place the applicants at the Government ’ s disposal on the ground of vagrancy is such as to fulfil the requirements of the Convention, particularly of Article 5, paragraph (4) (art. 5-4); (2) whether or not the Convention, particularly Article 5, paragraph (4) (art. 5-4), was violated by the fact that the applicants did not have at their disposal a remedy before a court which, at reasonable intervals, after the initial decision on detention, could have investigated whether their detention was still lawful and order their release if such was no longer the case; (3) whether or not the Convention, particularly Article 7 and Article 6, paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) (b) and (c) (art. 7, art. 6-1, art. 6-3-b, art. 6-3-c), was violated by the fact that the reformative measures taken vis-à-vis vagrants under Belgian law are in practice, as alleged, of a penal nature; (4) whether or not the Convention, particularly Article 4 (art. 4), was violated by the fact that the applicants were subjected to forced labour during a period of detention which allegedly did not meet the requirements of Article 5 (art. 5); (5) whether or not the Convention, particularly Article 8 (art. 8), was violated by the fact that the applicants ’ correspondence was censored during their detention." It appears from the cases before the Court that questions on the merits arise also in connection with Article 5, paragraphs (1) and (3), Article 3 and Article 13 (art. 5-1, art. 5-3, art. 3, art. 13). A. As to the "general and preliminary observation" of the government 64. In its memorials and oral pleadings, the Government recalled that the Court ’ s function is to rule on three specific cases where the legislation in issue was applied and not on an abstract problem relating to the compatibility of the legislation with the Convention; on this point the Government cited the De Becker judgment of 27th March 1962 (Series A, p. 26 in fine). Starting from that premise, the Government stressed that the applicants had reported voluntarily to the police and that their admission to Wortel and Merksplas had been the result "of an express or implicit request" on their part, express for Versyp and Ooms, implicit for De Wilde. According to the Government, such a "voluntary reporting" can scarcely amount to being "deprived of liberty" within the meaning of Article 5 (art. 5). From this it concluded that the Court ought to rule out forthwith any idea of a failure to comply with the requirements of the Convention, as regards both "the detention itself" and "the conditions of detention". 65. The Court is not persuaded by this line of argument. Temporary distress or misery may drive a person to give himself up to the police to be detained. This does not necessarily mean that the person so asking is in a state of vagrancy and even less that he is a professional beggar or that his state of vagrancy results from one of the circumstances - idleness, drunkenness or immorality - which, under Section 13 of the Belgian Act of 1891, may entail a more severe measure of detention. Insofar as the wishes of the applicants were taken into account, they cannot in any event remove or disguise the mandatory, as opposed to contractual, character of the decisions complained of; this mandatory character comes out unambiguously in the legal texts (Sections 8, 13, 15, 16 and 18 of the 1891 Act) and in the documents before the Court. Finally and above all, the right to liberty is too important in a "democratic society" within the meaning of the Convention for a person to lose the benefit of the protection of the Convention for the single reason that he gives himself up to be taken into detention. Detention might violate Article 5 (art. 5) even although the person concerned might have agreed to it. When the matter is one which concerns ordre public within the Council of Europe, a scrupulous supervision by the organs of the Convention of all measures capable of violating the rights and freedoms which it guarantees is necessary in every case. Furthermore, Section 12 of the 1891 Act acknowledges the need for such supervision at national level: it obliges the magistrates to "ascertain the identity, age, physical and mental state and manner of life of persons brought before the police court for vagrancy". Nor does the fact that the applicants "reported voluntarily" in any way relieve the Court of its duty to see whether there has been a violation of the Convention. B. As to the alleged violation of paragraph (1) of article 5 (art. 5-1) 66. It appears from the record that the applicants alleged, inter alia, a violation of the first paragraph of Article 5 (art. 5-1) of the Convention; the Government contested this submission and the Commission itself rejected it in its report. Insofar as it applies to the present cases, Article 5 (1) (art. 5-1) provides as follows: "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: ... (e) the lawful detention ... of vagrants; ...." 67. The applicants were provisionally deprived of their freedom by the police superintendent to whom they presented themselves and they were brought by him within twenty-four hours, as provided by Section 3 of the Act of 1st May 1849, before the magistrate who placed them at the disposal of the Government (see paragraphs 16, 17, 23, 24, 28 and 29 above). The lawfulness of the action of the police superintendents has not been challenged; as the persons concerned reported voluntarily and indicated that they were in a state of vagrancy it was only normal that they should be brought before the magistrate for a decision. This action, moreover, was of a purely preliminary nature. It was by virtue of the magistrates ’ orders that the detention took place. It is therefore by reference to these orders that the lawfulness of the detention of the three applicants must be assessed. 68. The Convention does not contain a definition of the term "vagrant". The definition of Article 347 of the Belgian Criminal Code reads: "vagrants are persons who have no fixed abode, no means of subsistence and no regular trade or profession". Where these three conditions are fulfilled, they may lead the competent authorities to order that the persons concerned be placed at the disposal of the Government as vagrants. The definition quoted does not appear to be in any way irreconcilable with the usual meaning of the term "vagrant", and the Court considers that a person who is a vagrant under the terms of Article 347 in principle falls within the exception provided for in Article 5 (1) (e) (art. 5-1-e) of the Convention. In the present cases the want of a fixed abode and of means of subsistence resulted not merely from the action of the persons concerned in reporting voluntarily to the police but from their own declarations made at the time: all three stated that they were without any employment (see paragraphs 16, 23 and 28 above). As to the habitual character of this lack of employment the magistrates at Charleroi, Namur and Brussels were in a position to deduce this from the information available to them concerning the respective applicants. This would, moreover, also be indicated by the fact that, although they purported to be workers, the three applicants were apparently not in a position to claim the minimum number of working days required to be effected within a given period which, in accordance with the Royal Decree of 20th December 1963 (Articles 118 et seqq.), would have qualified them for unemployment benefits. 69. Having thus the character of a "vagrant", the applicants could, under Article 5 (1) (e) (art. 5-1-e) of the Convention, be made the subject of a detention provided that it was ordered by the competent authorities and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Belgian law. In this connection the Court observes that the applicants did not receive the same treatment: De Wilde was placed at the disposal of the Government on 19th April 1966 for two years but was released on 16th November 1966; Ooms was placed at the disposal of the Government on 21st December 1965 for an indefinite period and was released after one year, that is on the expiry of the statutory term; Versyp was placed at the disposal of the Government on 4th November 1965 for two years and was released on 10th August 1967, that is after one year, nine months and six days (see paragraphs 17, 20, 24, 26, 29 and 31 above). As the Court has already noted, the placing of a person at the disposal of the Government for a fixed period differs from that for an indefinite period not solely by the fact that it is pronounced for a minimum period of two years (Section 13 of the 1891 Act) while the other may not last longer than one year (Sections 16 and 18): the first is also more severe in that it is entered on the criminal record (see paragraph 36 above), and in regard to electoral disabilities (see paragraph 158 of the Commission ’ s report). In the present cases, the orders concerning De Wilde and Versyp do not disclose which of the four conditions mentioned in Section 13 may have led the magistrates to apply this section rather than Section 16, but they refer to the administrative file of the persons concerned. The file on Jacques De Wilde contained an information note dated 19th April 1966 - the day he appeared before the magistrate at Charleroi - which listed various convictions and orders placing him at the disposal of the Government (see paragraph 16 above). Furthermore, the Brussels police court had before it, when Versyp appeared there, a document from the Social Rehabilitation Office in which his state of vagrancy was attributed to idleness and to weakness for drink (see paragraph 28 above). 70. The Court has, therefore, not found either irregularity or arbitrariness in the placing of the three applicants at the disposal of the Government and it has no reason to find the resulting detention incompatible with Article 5 (1) (e) (art. 5-1-e) of the Convention. C. As to the alleged violation of paragraph (3) of article 5 (art. 5-3) 71. Before the Commission, the applicants also alleged that there had been a violation of paragraph (3) of Article 5 (art. 5-3) which provides that: "Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) (art. 5-1-c) ... shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial ...". Paragraph (1) (c) of Article 5 (art. 5-1-c), to which the text quoted refers, is solely concerned with "the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so"; as simple vagrancy does not amount to an offence in Belgian law (see paragraph 34 above), the applicants were arrested and detained not under sub-paragraph (c) of the first paragraph of Article 5 (art. 5-1-c) - nor, it may be added, under sub-paragraph (a) (art. 5-1-a) ("after conviction by a competent court") - but in fact under sub-paragraph (e) (art. 5-1-e). From this the Court must conclude - as did the Commission - that paragraph (3) (art. 5-3) was not applicable to them. D. As to the alleged violation of paragraph (4) of article 5 (art. 5-4) 72. The Commission accepted to a certain extent the arguments of the applicants and expressed the opinion that the system in issue fails to comply with Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) of the Convention. According to paragraph (4) of Article 5 (art. 5-4), which is applicable inter alia to vagrants detained under sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph (1) (art. 5-1-e), "everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful". 73. Although the Court has not found in the present cases any incompatibility with paragraph (1) of Article 5 (art. 5-1) (see paragraphs 67 to 70 above), this finding does not dispense it from now proceeding to examine whether there has been any violation of paragraph (4) (art. 5-4). The latter is, in effect, a separate provision, and its observance does not result eo ipso from the observance of the former: "everyone who is deprived of his liberty", lawfully or not, is entitled to a supervision of lawfulness by a court; a violation can therefore result either from a detention incompatible with paragraph (1) (art. 5-1) or from the absence of any proceedings satisfying paragraph (4) (art. 5-4), or even from both at the same time. 1. As to the decisions ordering detention 74. The Court began by investigating whether the conditions in which De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp appeared before the magistrates satisfied their right to take proceedings before a court to question the lawfulness of their detention. 75. The applicants were detained in execution of the magistrates ’ orders: their arrest by the police was merely a provisional act and no other authority intervened in the three cases (see paragraph 67 above). A first question consequently arises. Does Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) require that two authorities should deal with the cases falling under it, that is, one which orders the detention and a second, having the attributes of a court, which examines the lawfulness of this measure on the application of the person concerned? Or, as against this, is it sufficient that the detention should be ordered by an authority which had the elements inherent in the concept of a "court" within the meaning of Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4)? 76. At first sight, the wording of Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) might make one think that it guarantees the right of the detainee always to have supervised by a court the lawfulness of a previous decision which has deprived him of his liberty. The two official texts do not however use the same terms, since the English text speaks of "proceedings" and not of "appeal", "recourse" or "remedy" (compare Articles 13 and 26 (art. 13, art. 26)). Besides, it is clear that the purpose of Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) is to assure to persons who are arrested and detained the right to a judicial supervision of the lawfulness of the measure to which they are thereby subjected; the word "court" ("tribunal") is there found in the singular and not in the plural. Where the decision depriving a person of his liberty is one taken by an administrative body, there is no doubt that Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) obliges the Contracting States to make available to the person detained a right of recourse to a court; but there is nothing to indicate that the same applies when the decision is made by a court at the close of judicial proceedings. In the latter case the supervision required by Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) is incorporated in the decision; this is so, for example, where a sentence of imprisonment is pronounced after "conviction by a competent court" (Article 5 (1) (a) of the Convention) (art. 5-1-a). It may therefore be concluded that Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) is observed if the arrest or detention of a vagrant, provided for in paragraph (1) (e) (art. 5-1-e), is ordered by a "court" within the meaning of paragraph (4) (art. 5-4). It results, however, from the purpose and object of Article 5 (art. 5), as well as from the very terms of paragraph (4) (art. 5-4) ("proceedings"," recours "), that in order to constitute such a "court" an authority must provide the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty. If the procedure of the competent authority does not provide them, the State could not be dispensed from making available to the person concerned a second authority which does provide all the guarantees of judicial procedure. In sum, the Court considers that the intervention of one organ satisfies Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4), but on condition that the procedure followed has a judicial character and gives to the individual concerned guarantees appropriate to the kind of deprivation of liberty in question. 77. The Court has therefore enquired whether in the present cases the magistrate possessed the character of a "court" within the meaning of Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4), and especially whether the applicants enjoyed, when appearing before him, the guarantees mentioned above. There is no doubt that from an organisational point of view the magistrate is a "court"; the Commission has, in fact, accepted this. The magistrate is independent both of the executive and of the parties to the case and he enjoys the benefit of the guarantees afforded to the judges by Articles 99 and 100 of the Constitution of Belgium. The task the magistrate has to discharge in the matters under consideration consists in finding whether in law the statutory conditions required for the "placing at the disposal of the Government" are fulfilled in respect of the person brought before him. By this very finding, the police court necessarily decides "the lawfulness" of the detention which the prosecuting authority requests it to sanction. The Commission has, however, emphasised that in vagrancy matters the magistrate exercises "an administrative function" and does not therefore carry out the "judicial supervision" required by Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4). This opinion is grounded on the case-law of the Court of Cassation and of the Conseil d ’ État (see paragraph 37 above). The Commission had concluded from this that the provision of a judicial proceeding was essential. 78. It is true that the Convention uses the word "court" (French "tribunal") in several of its Articles. It does so to mark out one of the constitutive elements of the guarantee afforded to the individual by the provision in question (see, in addition to Article 5 (4), Articles 2 (1), 5 (1) (a) and (b), and 6 (1) (tribunal) (art. 5-4, art. 2-1, art. 5-1-a, art. 5-1-b, art. 6-1). In all these different cases it denotes bodies which exhibit not only common fundamental features, of which the most important is independence of the executive and of the parties to the case (see Neumeister judgment of 27th June 1968, Series A, p. 44, paragraph 24), but also the guarantees of judicial procedure. The forms of the procedure required by the Convention need not, however, necessarily be identical in each of the cases where the intervention of a court is required. In order to determine whether a proceeding provides adequate guarantees, regard must be had to the particular nature of the circumstances in which such proceeding takes place. Thus, in the Neumeister case, the Court considered that the competent courts remained "courts" in spite of the lack of "equality of arms" between the prosecution and an individual who requested provisional release (ibidem); nevertheless, the same might not be true in a different context and, for example, in another situation which is also governed by Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4). 79. It is therefore the duty of the Court to determine whether the proceedings before the police courts of Charleroi, Namur and Brussels satisfied the requirements of Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) which follow from the interpretation adopted above. The deprivation of liberty complained of by De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp resembles that imposed by a criminal court. Therefore, the procedure applicable should not have provided guarantees markedly inferior to those existing in criminal matters in the member States of the Council of Europe. According to Belgian law, every individual found in a state of vagrancy is arrested and then brought - within twenty-four hours as a rule - before the police court (Section 8 of the 1891 Act and Section 3 of the Act of 1st May 1849). Regarding the interrogation of this individual, the 1891 Act limits itself to specifying in Section 12 that the magistrate ascertains the identity, age, physical and mental state and manner of life of the person brought before him. Regarding the right of defence, the only relevant provision is found in Section 3 of the Act of 1st May 1849, which provides that the person concerned is granted a three-day adjournment if he so requests. According to information provided by the Government, the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to the detention of vagrants. The procedure in question is affected by the administrative nature of the decision to be given. It does not ensure guarantees comparable to those which exist as regards detention in criminal cases, notwithstanding the fact that the detention of vagrants is very similar in many respects. It is hard to understand why persons arrested for simple vagrancy have to be content with such a summary procedure: individuals liable to sentences shorter than the terms provided for by Section 13, and even Section 16, of the 1891 Act - including those prosecuted for an offence under Articles 342 to 344 of the Criminal Code (aggravated vagrancy) - have the benefit of the extensive guarantees provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. This procedure undoubtedly presents certain judicial features, such as the hearing taking place and the decision being given in public, but they are not sufficient to give the magistrate the character of a "court" within the meaning of Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) when due account is taken of the seriousness of what is at stake, namely a long deprivation of liberty attended by various shameful consequences. Therefore it does not by itself satisfy the requirements of Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) and the Commission was quite correct in considering that a remedy should have been open to the applicants. The Court, however, has already held that De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp had no access either to a superior court or, at least in practice, to the Conseil d ’ État (see paragraphs 37 and 62 above). 80. The Court therefore reaches the conclusion that on the point now under consideration there has been a violation of Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) in that the three applicants did not enjoy the guarantees contained in that paragraph. 2. As to the rejection of the requests for release addressed by the applicants to the administrative authorities 81. In the applicants ’ view there was a violation of Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) not only because of the conditions in which their detention was ordered by the magistrate, but also because of the refusal of their requests for release. 82. The Court finds that the applicants could without doubt have appealed to the Conseil d ’ État and that this appeal would have been effective if the Minister of Justice had violated the 1891 Act in refusing their requests for release. None of them, however, claims to have been in one of those situations where the Act requires that detention should end. De Wilde and Versyp were in fact released 0before the expiry of the period of two years fixed by the magistrate (Section 13 of the 1891 Act; paragraphs 17, 20, 29, 31 in fine and 40 above); Ooms was released on the expiry of the statutory period of one year and his release savings had not before that time reached the prescribed amount (Sections 16, 17 and 18, first paragraph, of the 1891 Act; paragraphs 24, 26 in fine and 40 above). The applicants could also have contended before the Conseil d ’ État - as they did before the Commission, though not very precisely (see paragraph 48 of the report) - that their detention had in any event violated Article 5 (1) (art. 5-1) of the Convention, particularly because, due to supervening circumstances, they had lost their character of vagrants. In fact Article 5 (art. 5) of the Convention is directly applicable in the Belgian legal system, such that its violation could have been complained of before the Conseil d ’ État and it cannot be affirmed a priori that it would not have decided speedily. 83. On the other hand, the requests looked to the Minister of Justice to use the discretionary power conferred upon him by the 1891 Act (Sections 15 and 18) to decide, in the light of the circumstances relied on by the interested party or of other pertinent information, whether a detained vagrant should be released before the statutory period or the term fixed by the magistrate ’ s decision. To that extent, whatever action was taken thereafter falls completely outside the application of the provision of Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) of the Convention. This latter provision, in fact, requires supervision only of the lawfulness of the placing in detention or of its continuation. 84. The Court does not therefore find any violation of Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) on the point at issue. E. As to the alleged violation of articles 6 and 7 (art. 6, art. 7) 85. The Commission and the Government both submit that Articles 6 and 7 (art. 6, art. 7), relied upon by the applicants, are inapplicable. 86. The Court has come to the conclusion that, during the hearing before the magistrates, the applicants were not dealt with in accordance with the requirements of Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) (see paragraphs 74 to 80 above). This conclusion makes it superfluous to examine whether Article 6 (art. 6) was applicable in this case, and if so, whether it was observed. 87. As to Article 7 (art. 7), it is clear that it is not relevant. Simple vagrancy is not an "offence" under Belgian law and the magistrate did not find the applicants "guilty" nor impose a "penalty" on them (see, mutatis mutandis, the Lawless judgment of 1st July 1961, Series A, p. 54, paragraph 19). F. As to the alleged violation of article 4 (art. 4) 88. According to Article 4 (art. 4) of the Convention, "(1) ... (2) No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour. (3) For the purpose of this Article the term ‘ forced or compulsory labour ’ shall not include: (a) any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 (art. 5) (...); ..." In the Commission ’ s view the work which the applicants were compelled to perform was not justified under Article 4 (art. 4) as, in its opinion, there had been a breach of paragraph (4) of Article 5 (art. 5-4). 89. The Court too has, in these cases, found a violation of the rights guaranteed by Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) (see paragraphs 74 to 80 above), but it does not think that it must deduce therefrom a violation of Article 4 (art. 4). It in fact considers that paragraph (3) (a) of Article 4 (art. 4-3-a) authorises work ordinarily required of individuals deprived of their liberty under Article 5 (1) (e) (art. 5-1-e). The Court has found moreover, on the basis of information before it, that no violation of Article 5 (1) (e) (art. 5-1-e) has been established in respect of De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp (see paragraphs 67 to 70 above). 90. Furthermore, the duty to work imposed on the three applicants has not exceeded the "ordinary" limits, within the meaning of Article 4 (3) (a) (art. 4-3-a) of the Convention, because it aimed at their rehabilitation and was based on a general standard, Section 6 of the 1891 Act, which finds its equivalent in several member States of the Council of Europe (see paragraph 38 above and Appendices IV and V to the Commission ’ s report). The Belgian authorities did not therefore fail to comply with the requirements of Article 4 (art. 4). G. As to the alleged violation of article 8 (art. 8) 91. During their detention, the applicants ’ correspondence was supervised to a certain extent. In the Commission ’ s view this led to a violation of Article 8 (art. 8), on the one hand because the detention of the applicants was unlawful in that Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) had not been complied with and on the other hand because, even if it was lawful, ordinary detention for vagrancy cannot entail the restrictions on the freedom of correspondence which are permissible in criminal matters. 92. On the first argument, the Court recalls mutatis mutandis the reasons given in paragraph 89 above on compulsory labour. 93. On the second argument, the Court recalls that Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention provides that: "(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. (2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." The Court finds that the supervision in question, which constitutes unquestionably an "interference by a public authority with the exercise of (the) right" enshrined in paragraph (1) of Article 8 (art. 8-1), was "in accordance with the law" - within the meaning of paragraph (2) (art. 8-2) - as it is provided for in Articles 20 to 23 of the Royal Decree of 21st May 1965 taken in conjunction with Article 95. It then observes, in the light of the information given to it, that the competent Belgian authorities did not transgress in the present cases the limits of the power of appreciation which Article 8 (2) (art. 8-2) of the Convention leaves to the Contracting States: even in cases of persons detained for vagrancy, those authorities had sufficient reason to believe that it was "necessary" to impose restrictions for the purpose of the prevention of disorder or crime, the protection of health or morals, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. These restrictions did not in any event apply in a long series of instances enumerated in Article 24 of the Royal Decree of 21st May 1965 nor in connection with the applicants ’ correspondence with the Commission (see paragraph 39 above). Finally, there is nothing to indicate that there was any discrimination or abuse of power to the prejudice of the applicants (Articles 14 and 18 of the Convention) (art. 14, art. 18). H. As to the alleged violation of article 3 (art. 3) 94. De Wilde and Versyp complained of disciplinary punishments inflicted on them for refusing to work but the Commission did not consider that these punishments violated Article 3 (art. 3). Having regard to the facts before it, the Court also does not find, even ex officio, any suggestion of a violation of this text. I. As to the alleged violation of article 13 (art. 13) 95. The applicants invoked Article 13 (art. 13) of the Convention, alleging that they did not have "an effective remedy before a national authority" in order to obtain the protection of the rights guaranteed by Articles 5, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 (art. 5, art. 3, art. 4, art. 6, art. 7, art. 8). The Court has already ruled that the applicants were not dealt with in a manner compatible with the requirements of Article 5 (4) (art. 5-4) (see paragraphs 74 to 80 above); to this extent, it does not think it has to enquire whether there has been a violation of Article 13 (art. 13). As to the applicants ’ other complaints, the Court limits itself to finding that Articles 3 to 8 (art. 3, art. 4, art. 5, art. 6, art. 7, art. 8) of the Convention are directly applicable in Belgian law. If, therefore, the applicants considered that the administrative decisions put in issue had violated the rights guaranteed by these articles, they could have challenged them before the Conseil d ’ État.
The Court found that there had been no violation of Article 4 (prohibition of slavery or forced labour) of the Convention, as the applicants’ work in the vagrancy centres had not exceeded the permitted limits in the Convention, because it had been aimed at the rehabilitation of vagrants and was comparable to that in several other Council of Europe member States.