Facts

The case concerns a young man, [S.], born on 1 September 1966, who was placed in an educational institution on 30 June 1983. On 16 July 1984, the president of the juvenile court modified the measure by substituting educational support. On 14 March 1985, [S.] was convicted of a narcotics offense and received a suspended prison sentence and a fine. He then fled to Amsterdam, where he resumed drug use. After his return to Switzerland, an expert opinion was ordered, which recommended outpatient psychiatric monitoring. However, [S.] left his job and returned to Amsterdam, where he continued to use drugs. The court then decided to modify the measure and place [S.] in an educational institution.

The key facts are as follows

  • [S.] was placed in an educational institution at the age of 17.
  • The measure was modified to educational support in 1984.
  • [S.] was convicted of a narcotics offense in 1985.
  • He left his job and returned to Amsterdam several times.
  • An expert opinion recommended outpatient psychiatric monitoring.
  • The court decided to modify the measure and place [S.] in an educational institution.

Considerations

The federal court examined the question of whether the modification of the measure was in accordance with the law. It considered that the court may modify a measure ordered in the context of juvenile criminal law not only as long as the adolescent is still a minor from a penal point of view, but also up to the maximum age limit indicated in article 94, ch. 5, SCC.

The court also considered that the court is bound only by the legal provisions applicable to the new measure and…