EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp v. Belgium

Application no. 2832/66, 2835/66 and 2899/66

18 June 1971

(Excerpts)

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.

II. As to the Merits

8. Holds unanimously that there has been no breach of Article 4 (art. 4);

9. Holds by fifteen votes to one that there has been no breach of Article 8 (art. 8);