The Committee of Ministers,
Having regard to Article 32 (art. 32) of the European Convention for
the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter
called "the Convention");
Having regard to the report drawn up by the European Commission of
Human Rights in accordance with Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention
relating to the applications lodged by MM. LaHaye, de Wilde, Nys and
Swalens, Belgian nationals, against the Government of Belgium
(Nos. 2551/65, 3155/67, 3174/67 and 3499/68);
Whereas the Commission transmitted the said report to the Committee of
Ministers on 10 April 1972 and whereas the period of three months
provided for in Article 32, paragraph 1 (art. 32-1) of the Convention
has elapsed without the cases having been brought before the Court in
pursuance of Article 48 (art. 48) of the Convention;
Whereas in their applications, introduced on 25 June 1965,
12 May 1967, 1 May 1967 and 26 December 1967 respectively, the
applicants complained of violation of several articles of the
Convention alleged to have taken place in relation to their detention
for vagrancy;
Whereas the Commission, on 17 December 1971, after having ordered the
joinder of these four applications, declared admissible the complaints
based on Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4), of the Convention;
Whereas the Commission, during the examination of these cases,
expressed the opinion that the questions raised were the same as those
examined in its report on the de Wilde, Ooms and Versyp cases (first
"Vagrancy Cases") and referred to the judgment of the European Court
of Human Rights of 18 June 1971, in which the Court held, by nine
votes to seven, that there had been a breach of Article 5, paragraph 4
(art. 5-4) of the Convention in that the applicants had no remedy open
to them before a court against the decision ordering their detention;
Agreeing with the opinion expressed unanimously by the Commission in
accordance with Article 31, paragraph 1 (art. 31-1) of the Convention,
that the Belgian system as established by the Act of 27 November 1891
did not satisfy the requirements of Article 5, paragraph 4 (art. 5-4),
of the Convention;
Having considered the proposal made by the Commission in accordance
with paragraph 3 of Article 31 (art. 31-3) of the Convention to the
effect that the Committee of Ministers should adopt in the present
cases a solution similar to that which the European Court of Human
Rights adopted in the de Wilde, Ooms and Versyp cases (first "Vagrancy
Cases");
Recalling the judgment of the Court of 18 June 1971 in the first
"Vagrancy Cases" and the communication of the Belgian Government of
13 October 1971 informing the Committee of Ministers of the new law
promulgated in Belgium on 6 August 1971 (CM (71) 160);
Recalling its decision of 18 January 1972 expressing the
satisfaction of the Committee of Ministers with the legislative
measures introduced in Belgium;
Recalling also the second judgment of the Court of 10 March 1972
in the de Wilde, Ooms and Versyp cases (first "Vagrancy Cases") that
the applicants' claims for damages were not well-founded;
Voting in accordance with the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1
(art. 32-1) of the Convention,
(a) Decides that the Belgian system as formerly established by the
Act of 27 November 1891 did not satisfy the requirements of Article 5,
paragraph 4 (art. 5-4) of the Convention on Human Rights;
(b) Renews its satisfaction with the legislative measures introduced
by the Belgian authorities in order to bring the Belgian internal law
into harmony with the relevant provision of the European Convention on
Human Rights;
(c) Decides that no further action is required in the present cases.