Aerts v Belgium [1998] ECHR 64

A mentally ill detainee was held for seven months in a prison psychiatric wing rather than the designated Social Protection Centre. The Court found violations of Article 5(1) regarding unlawful detention in an inappropriate institution and Article 6(1) concerning denial of legal aid for appeal, establishing that detention of persons of unsound mind requires appropriate therapeutic facilities.

Facts

Mr Michel Aerts, a Belgian national, was arrested on 14 November 1992 for assaulting his ex-wife with a hammer. On 15 January 1993, the Committals Chamber of the Liège Court of First Instance imposed a detention order on him pursuant to the Social Protection Act of 1964, finding he was suffering from severe mental disturbance making him incapable of controlling his actions. The court ordered that, pending transfer to an institution designated by the Mental Health Board, he would be detained provisionally in the psychiatric wing of Lantin Prison.

On 22 March 1993, the Mental Health Board designated the Paifve Social Protection Centre as the place of detention. However, due to a shortage of places, Mr Aerts remained in the Lantin psychiatric wing until 27 October 1993 – a period of approximately seven months after the Board’s decision.

Conditions at Lantin Prison

Evidence demonstrated that the psychiatric wing at Lantin was severely inadequate for treating mentally ill patients. A psychiatrist’s report of 10 March 1993 stated that Mr Aerts:

“is extremely anxious in the common room of the wing, continually asks for his medication to be changed and is perpetually plunged in ruminations… it would seem that he urgently requires the full benefits of an institution better equipped to calm the constant anxiety he feels at the moment.”

The Mental Health Board itself, on 2 August 1993, noted:

“It is not acceptable that our decision of 22 March 1993 placing [the applicant] in the Paifve Social Protection Centre has still not been executed. That failure of administration on the part of the responsible authorities is harmful to the person concerned, who is not getting the treatment required by the condition which led to his detention.”

The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) reported that the standard of care at Lantin:

“fell, in every respect, below the minimum acceptable from an ethical and humanitarian point of view”

Issues

The case raised several issues under the European Convention on Human Rights:

Article 5(1) – Right to Liberty

Whether the applicant’s continued detention in the psychiatric wing of Lantin Prison, after designation of Paifve as his place of detention, was lawful.

Article 5(4) – Right to Review of Detention

Whether the applicant had access to proceedings to determine the lawfulness of his detention.

Article 6(1) – Right to a Fair Hearing

Whether the refusal of legal aid for an appeal to the Court of Cassation violated the applicant’s right of access to a court.

Article 3 – Prohibition of Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

Whether the conditions of detention constituted inhuman or degrading treatment.

Judgment

Article 5(1)

The Court unanimously found a violation. It held that detention must comply with both national law and the Convention’s aim of protecting individuals from arbitrariness. The Court stated:

“there must be some relationship between the ground of permitted deprivation of liberty relied on and the place and conditions of detention. In principle, the ‘detention’ of a person as a mental health patient will only be ‘lawful’ for the purposes of sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 1 if effected in a hospital, clinic or other appropriate institution.”

The Court concluded that the Lantin psychiatric wing “could not be regarded as an institution appropriate for the detention of persons of unsound mind” as inmates did not receive “either regular medical attention or a therapeutic environment.” Therefore, “the proper relationship between the aim of the detention and the conditions in which it took place was therefore deficient.”

Article 5(4)

The Court unanimously found no violation, holding that the injunction proceedings satisfied the requirements of Article 5(4).

Article 6(1)

The Court unanimously found a violation. It held that the right to liberty was a civil right, and the applicant legitimately sought legal aid to appeal to the Court of Cassation. The Court stated:

“It was not for the Legal Aid Board to assess the proposed appeal’s prospects of success; it was for the Court of Cassation to determine the issue. By refusing the application on the ground that the appeal did not at that time appear to be well-founded, the Legal Aid Board impaired the very essence of Mr Aerts’s right to a tribunal.”

Article 3

By seven votes to two, the Court found no violation. While acknowledging the unsatisfactory conditions at Lantin, the Court held that the living conditions did not have such serious effects on the applicant’s mental health as to bring them within the scope of Article 3.

Implications

This judgment is significant for several reasons:

First, it establishes that the detention of persons of unsound mind must take place in appropriate therapeutic institutions. A psychiatric wing of an ordinary prison without adequate medical facilities or treatment programmes does not satisfy this requirement.

Second, the case reinforces that legal aid boards cannot refuse assistance based on their assessment of an appeal’s merits when such refusal effectively denies access to a court.

Third, the judgment highlights the importance of States implementing mental health board decisions promptly and ensuring adequate capacity in social protection centres.

The case has broader significance for the rights of mentally ill detainees across Council of Europe member states, requiring them to ensure that detention of such persons occurs in appropriate institutions with proper therapeutic environments.

Verdict: The Court found: (1) violation of Article 5(1) regarding unlawful detention in an inappropriate institution; (2) no violation of Article 5(4); (3) violation of Article 6(1) due to denial of legal aid impairing the right of access to a court; (4) no violation of Article 3. Belgium was ordered to pay the applicant 50,000 Belgian francs for non-pecuniary damage and 400,000 Belgian francs for costs and expenses.

Source: Aerts v Belgium [1998] ECHR 64