Information Note on the Court’s case-law 194

March 2016

Blokhin v. Russia [GC] - 47152/06

Judgment 23.3.2016 [GC]

Article 5

Article 5-1-d

Educational supervision

Thirty-day placement of minor in detention centre for young offenders to “correct his behaviour”: violation

Article 3

Degrading treatment

Inhuman treatment

Failure to provide adequate medical care for minor during detention to “correct his behaviour”: violation

Article 6

Criminal proceedings

Article 6-1

Criminal charge

Proceedings leading to minor’s placement in detention centre for young offenders to “correct his behaviour”: Article 6 applicable

Article 6-3

Rights of defence

Lack of adequate procedural guarantees in proceedings leading to minor’s placement in detention centre for young offenders to “correct his behaviour”: violation

Facts – The applicant, who at the material time was twelve years old and suffering from attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), was arrested and taken to a police station on suspicion of extorting money from a nine-year old. The authorities found it established that the applicant had committed offences punishable under the Criminal Code but, since he was below the statutory age of criminal responsibility, no criminal proceedings were opened against him. Instead he was brought before a court which ordered his placement in a temporary detention centre for juvenile offenders for a period of thirty days in order to “correct his behaviour” and to prevent his committing further acts of delinquency. The applicant alleged that his health deteriorated while in the centre as he did not receive the medical treatment his doctor had prescribed.

In a judgment of 14 November 2013 (see Information Note 168), a Chamber of the Court held unanimously that there had been violations of Article 3 of the Convention (on account of the lack of adequate medical treatment for the applicant’s condition), of Article 5 (on account of the applicant’s detention in the temporary detention centre, which was held to have been arbitrary) and of Article 6 § 1 in conjunction with Article 6 § 3 (c) and (d) (on account of the lack of adequate procedural guarantees in the proceedings leading to his placement). The case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request

Law

Article 3: In line with established international law, the health of juveniles deprived of their liberty shall be safeguarded according to recognised medical standards applicable to juveniles in the wider community. The authorities should always be guided by the child’s best interests and the child should be guaranteed proper care and protection. Moreover, if the authorities are considering depriving a child of his or her liberty, a medical assessment should be made of the child’s state of health to determine whether or not he or she can be placed in a juvenile detention centre.

In the instant case, there had been sufficient evidence to show that the authorities were aware that the applicant was suffering from ADHD upon his admission to the temporary detention centre and was in need of treatment. Moreover, the fact that he was hospitalised the day after his release, and kept in the psychiatric hospital for almost three weeks, indicated that he was not given the necessary treatment for his condition at the temporary detention centre. The applicant had thus established a prima facie case. For their part, the Government had failed to show that the applicant received the medical care required by his condition during his thirty-day stay at the temporary detention centre where he was entirely under the control and responsibility of the staff. There had thus been a violation of the applicant’s rights under Article 3 on account of the lack of necessary medical treatment at the temporary detention centre, having regard to his young age and particularly vulnerable situation as an ADHD sufferer.

Conclusion: violation (unanimously).

Article 5 § 1: The Grand Chamber confirmed the Chamber’s finding that the applicant’s placement for thirty days in the temporary detention centre amounted to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 § 1. The Chamber had noted in particular that the centre was closed and guarded, with twenty-four-hour surveillance to ensure inmates did not leave the premises without authorisation and a disciplinary regime enforced by a duty squad.

The Grand Chamber agreed with the Chamber that the applicant’s placement did not come within any of sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (e) or (f) Article 5 § 1 of the Convention. It therefore focused its examination on whether the placement was in accordance with Article 5 § 1 (d) (detention for the purposes of educational supervision).

The Grand Chamber reiterated that the words “educational supervision” must not be equated rigidly with notions of classroom teaching: in the context of a young person in local authority care, educational supervision must embrace many aspects of the exercise, by the local authority, of parental rights for the benefit and protection of the person concerned. Further, detention for educational supervision must take place in an appropriate facility with the resources to meet the necessary educational objectives and security requirements.

Turning to the facts of the applicant’s case, it noted that placement in a temporary detention centre was a short-term, temporary solution and could not be compared to a placement in a closed educational institution, which was a separate and long-term measure intended to try to help minors with serious problems. The Grand Chamber failed to see how any meaningful educational supervision, to change a minor’s behaviour and offer appropriate treatment and rehabilitation, could be provided during a maximum period of thirty days.

While the Grand Chamber accepted that some schooling was provided in the centre, it considered that schooling in line with the normal school curriculum should be standard practice for all minors deprived of their liberty and placed under the State’s responsibility, even when