Comité de filtrage/Screening Panel
AFFAIRE PSYCHEX c. SUISSE
CASE OF PSYCHEX v. SWITZERLAND
(13/1998/916/1128)
DECISION
STRASBOURG
3 June 1998
In the case of Psychex v. Switzerland[1],
The Screening Panel of the European Court of Human Rights, constituted in accordance with Article 48 § 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) and Rule 26 of Rules of Court B[2],
Sitting in private at Strasbourg on 20 May 1998, and composed of the following judges:
MrsE. Palm, Chairwoman,
MrR. Pekkanen,
MrL. Wildhaber,
and also of Mr H. Petzold, Registrar,
Having regard to the application against the Swiss Confederation lodged with the Court on 6 February 1998 by Psychex, an association under Swiss law, within the three-month period laid down by Article 32 § 1 and Article 47 of the Convention;
Whereas Switzerland has recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46 of the Convention) and ratified Protocol No. 9 to the Convention, Article 5 of which amends Article 48 of the Convention so as to enable a person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals having lodged a complaint with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) to refer the case to the Court;
Noting that the present case has not been referred to the Court by either the Government of the respondent State or the Commission under Article 48 § 1 (a) or (d) of the Convention;
Having regard to the Commission’s report of 2 December 1997 on the application (no. 26955/95) lodged with the Commission by Psychex on 17 March 1995;
Whereas the applicant association complained that it had been prevented from sending a letter and other documents to persons detained in a psychiatric institution, and alleged breaches of Articles 8 (right to respect for correspondence), 10 (right to freedom of expression), 6 § 1, 13 and 14 of the Convention;
Whereas on 20 May 1997 the Commission declared admissible the complaints relating to Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible;
Whereas the applicant, in specifying the object of its application, as required by Rule 34 § 1 (a) of Rules of Court B, stated that it sought a decision by the Court holding that there had been breaches of Articles 8, 10 and 14 of the Convention;
Having regard to Article 48 of the Convention and Rule 34 §§ 1 (a), 3 and 4 of Rules of Court B,
1.Finds that
(a)the case raises no serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention, as the Court has already established case-law on the right to respect for correspondence and the freedom to impart information under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention, while consideration of the complaint under Article 14 lies outside the Court’s jurisdiction as the Commission has declared it inadmissible; and
(b)the case does not, for any other reason, warrant consideration by the Court as, in the event of a finding that there has been a breach of the Convention, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe can award the applicant association just satisfaction, having regard to any proposals made by the Commission;
2.Decides, therefore, unanimously, that the case will not be considered by the Court.
Done in English and in French, and notified in writing on 3 June 1998 pursuant to Rule 34 § 4 of Rules of Court B.
Signed: Elisabeth Palm
Chairwoman
Signed: Herbert Petzold
Registrar
[1]Notes by the Registrar
. The case is numbered 13/1998/916/1128. The first number is the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.
[2]. Rules of Court B, which came into force on 2 October 1994, apply to all cases concerning States bound by Protocol No. 9.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy